Jump to content

Found. The tree of knowledge of good and evil.


Greatest I am
 Share

Recommended Posts

Found. The tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

In the only place it could be found. In the Bible.

 

I will assume here that those who compiled the books of the Bible knew what they were doing, in terms of giving us a myth with a moral lesson.

 

God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. After all, he does set the standards of what is good and what is evil.

 

The Bible tells us not to add or subtract from it and to use it as it’s own judge. If we are to do so then we must judge what is in it as good or evil. FMPOV, the O T shows God’s evil side and the N T shows God’s good side. Most recognize this and this is why the emphasis is on following Jesus and not the barbaric God of the O T. IOW, the O T is the evil side of the tree of knowledge while the N T is the good side of the tree of knowledge.

 

Many that follow the Bible God recognize this. Literalists and fundamentals do not. They end up venerating the evil side of God, the O T, as well as the good side, Jesus and the N T, when they are supposed to be rejecting the God of evil in the O T.

 

Literalists and fundamentals can thus be seen as immature thinkers and true sheep. While Christians who recognize the evil in the God of the O T can be seen as better thinkers and able to discern good from evil. Literalist can be seen as poor thinkers who cannot discern evil. They end up with a theology that embraces everything from genocide to infanticide as long as God is doing it. Arguably an immoral position.

 

This is how literalists and fundamentals all end up hurting their parent religions.

 

If, as I stated, that the O T of the Bible should be seen as the evil side of the tree of knowledge and God, then the tree of life should be near. I submit that it is also within the Bible but that it has nothing to do with eternal life. Nowhere in the Bible is the great lose of this tree of immortality bemoaned. Yet to many, it is the most important aspect of the Bible. I think we can trust scriptures, when they speak of a tree of life, and only means a good life and not an eternal one.

 

Literalists and fundamentals thus end up having much work to do on their morals because they are hindered by the notion that they should be embracing and honoring an evil God.

 

In effect, from a biblical standpoint, they are the Anti-Christ, as they continue to venerate evil.

 

Who do you follow, the good God of the N T, or the evil God of the O T?

 

Reading the Bible as I do, and seeing it as containing the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, make this book all inclusive in and of itself and in that way, I am true to the authors and compilers who said not to add or subtract anything from it. It was meant to show a complete story and God and I think that reading it as I do is the only way to understand the full story. God thus become the epitome of both good and evil. As it should be for a God who takes responsibility. Mythically speaking that is.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIA

 

I am a life long atheist ( ie as soon as it was my choice I decided i did not believe) - but you make me feel sympathetic towards those who have faith in god because your arguments are so flawed.

 

Do you re-read and understand what you are posting? To deconstruct your post sentence by sentence

 

1. Found. - meaningless without context

2, The tree of knowledge of good and evil. - again pretty meaningless - ie no main verb etc

3. In the only place it could be found. - a pattern is emerging

4. In the Bible. - another non-sentence

5. I will assume... a moral lesson. Possibly a good point - but ignores the main fact that the bible is a "living" document with contributors spread over many thousands of years; to bypass this fact demonstrates a lack of understanding of the growth and history of Xnty

6-9 God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. - That is your exegesis and no one else's - I don't even know what you mean by the top and bottom of any attribute

10. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. - you might like to give a NT example of the greatest hate - cos in my limited view of Xian dogma this is nonsense.

 

etc...

 

I think, from reading your posts, that I might agree with you - but you assume so much and interpret so wildly that all of the real message is lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIA

 

I am a life long atheist ( ie as soon as it was my choice I decided i did not believe) - but you make me feel sympathetic towards those who have faith in god because your arguments are so flawed.

 

Do you re-read and understand what you are posting? To deconstruct your post sentence by sentence

 

1. Found. - meaningless without context

2, The tree of knowledge of good and evil. - again pretty meaningless - ie no main verb etc

3. In the only place it could be found. - a pattern is emerging

4. In the Bible. - another non-sentence

5. I will assume... a moral lesson. Possibly a good point - but ignores the main fact that the bible is a "living" document with contributors spread over many thousands of years; to bypass this fact demonstrates a lack of understanding of the growth and history of Xnty

6-9 God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. - That is your exegesis and no one else's - I don't even know what you mean by the top and bottom of any attribute

10. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. - you might like to give a NT example of the greatest hate - cos in my limited view of Xian dogma this is nonsense.

 

etc...

 

I think, from reading your posts, that I might agree with you - but you assume so much and interpret so wildly that all of the real message is lost.

 

 

The N T is not supposed to have a greatest hate example but it does if you recognize that hell did not exist for the O T writers and was only introduced later.

 

I did try to show Jesus in a better light than the O T God.

 

 

 

I agree that my composition and delivery are not to standard for many English.

 

Not being English is not my only excuse but is the main one.

 

If you know of a good ghost writer, I will be quite pleased.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will assume here that those who compiled the books of the Bible knew what they were doing, in terms of giving us a myth with a moral lesson.

Why? Many biblical stories aren't about morality necessarily. There are stories that are supposed to explain current natural phenomena for instance (like why do women suffer and die during child birth, or why you should be meek and beware questioning god's authority, etc). Isn't it possible this is one of those stories?

 

You assume too much right off the bag.

 

God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. After all, he does set the standards of what is good and what is evil.

Sorry, that's meaningless to me, God is said to be that by a specific group of people. Also, god sets the standards by stating the standards. Nowhere in the book does it say god should *follow* the standards he put forth for *man*.

 

That is, god put up moral standards for man to follow, and god has a different moral standard. It is quite consistently demonstrated in teh bible, and explained with the fact that God is omnipotent and all-knowing. What is "right for man" is not necessarily "right for god" and vice versa.

 

Actually, when extreme religionists claim that god is the moral standard, that's the usual rebuttal. It's only inconsistent with the *interpretation* of the text, a particular interpretation that you are making. It doesn't actually say what you say, so if you don't interpret it this way, it really isn't much of a problem.

 

I always found it ironic with extreme religionists -- their own interpretation sets them up for inconsistencies.

The Bible tells us not to add or subtract from it and to use it as it's own judge. If we are to do so then we must judge what is in it as good or evil. FMPOV, the O T shows God's evil side and the N T shows God's good side. Most recognize this and this is why the emphasis is on following Jesus and not the barbaric God of the O T. IOW, the O T is the evil side of the tree of knowledge while the N T is the good side of the tree of knowledge.

 

 

Yes, but that isn't necessarily about literalism. Jewish scholars (even religious ones) do not read the bible literally -- there is a whole study of biblical interpretation in judaism. We can argue whether or not the interpretation some Rabbis and scholars make is consistent, but regardless ,they still interpret it -- they go over context, meaning of words, repeated symbolisms, etc.

 

You assume again. If you talk about a particular group of people (namely, extreme literalist christians), then please state so. Otherwise, your comments are internally inconsistent and have an easy rebuttal.

 

Many that follow the Bible God recognize this. Literalists and fundamentals do not. They end up venerating the evil side of God, the O T, as well as the good side, Jesus and the N T, when they are supposed to be rejecting the God of evil in the O T.

Many who? Jews don't, and not all christians.

 

Stop generalizing, please.

 

 

Literalists and fundamentals can thus be seen as immature thinkers and true sheep. While Christians who recognize the evil in the God of the O T can be seen as better thinkers and able to discern good from evil. Literalist can be seen as poor thinkers who cannot discern evil. They end up with a theology that embraces everything from genocide to infanticide as long as God is doing it. Arguably an immoral position.

 

This is how literalists and fundamentals all end up hurting their parent religions.

 

You're preaching now.

 

 

You know how I can tell? Switch "literalists and fundamentalists" with "Atheists and Seculars" and "theology" with "philosophy" and "god" with "their leader".

 

If you had read this sentence, you'd flag it as preaching too:

 

 

Atheists and seculars can thus be seen as immature thinkers and true sheep. While Christians who recognize the evil in the God of the O T can be seen as better thinkers and able to discern good from evil. Atheists can be seen as poor thinkers who cannot discern evil. They end up with a philosophy that embraces everything from genocide to infanticide as long as their leader is doing it. Arguably an immoral position.

This is how atheists and seculars all end up hurting their parent philosophies.

 

See?

 

Don't preach. It doesn't convince anyone, and I seem to not be the only one that *wants* to agree with you, but can't.

 

If, as I stated, that the O T of the Bible should be seen as the evil side of the tree of knowledge and God, then the tree of life should be near. I submit that it is also within the Bible but that it has nothing to do with eternal life. Nowhere in the Bible is the great lose of this tree of immortality bemoaned. Yet to many, it is the most important aspect of the Bible. I think we can trust scriptures, when they speak of a tree of life, and only means a good life and not an eternal one.

I don't know why you're saying the OT is the "evil side" and the NT is the "good side of the tree". Can you bring the references of who claims this and where it is claimed? If some people make unfounded ridiculous claims it doesn't mean *all* people make that, nor does it mean that christians in general make it, or even that christian literalists make it.

 

Literalists and fundamentals thus end up having much work to do on their morals because they are hindered by the notion that they should be embracing and honoring an evil God.

I actually agree with this statement,but for a completely different list of reasons than you state. If you want, I can lay those out logically, but that would be a different topic.

 

Your conclusion does not follow your logic, even if I agree with your conclusion.

 

In effect, from a biblical standpoint, they are the Anti-Christ, as they continue to venerate evil.

Preaching again....

 

Who do you follow, the good God of the N T, or the evil God of the O T?

 

Reading the Bible as I do, and seeing it as containing the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, make this book all inclusive in and of itself and in that way, I am true to the authors and compilers who said not to add or subtract anything from it. It was meant to show a complete story and God and I think that reading it as I do is the only way to understand the full story. God thus become the epitome of both good and evil. As it should be for a God who takes responsibility. Mythically speaking that is.

 

 

Instead of preaching to the choir about how the stories are unrealistic, why don't you start by analyzing the story versus actual reference of what people say they believe? You make vague assumptions about vague beliefs of a vague group of people that you make it sound like everyone follow. It doesn't work like this.

 

Secularists get angry when extreme religionists do to them exactly what you do to the "other side" here.

You probably get angry too. Don't fall into the same trap and do it to them, we are supposed to be logical, remember? Logic is supposed to be on "our" side.

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only makes sense that the NT is going to be more refined because mankind has had more time to organize a bunch of ideas and philosophies into a summation of what works and what is right (depending on who you talk to). Where the OT is more of a collection of histories/different styles, the NT is more focused on content, especially since only one person's opinions are considered, so it's not exactly comparing apples to apples.

Edited by Realitycheck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

mooeypoo

 

I appreciate the fact that you would like me to be quite specific but how can I be when there are a myriad of differing Christian beliefs out there.

 

Most Christians cherry pick so badly that there is hardly anything that we can call a universal Christian belief.

 

I agree with what you describe of moral standards set by God but God not being subject to. A ridiculous stand to me as well as most theists who believe in the as above so below theology. Again, theists are all over the map and ignore scriptures that say that God is supposed to be our example and that we are to emulate him.

 

What I have said to the book itself and how it says to judge it by itself is common knowledge and believing this particular bit, I apply it and find the tree of knowledge as I have described it in the O P.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

It only makes sense that the NT is going to be more refined because mankind has had more time to organize a bunch of ideas and philosophies into a summation of what works and what is right (depending on who you talk to). Where the OT is more of a collection of histories, the NT is more focused on content, especially since only one person's opinions are considered, so it's not exactly comparing apples to apples.

 

What workes?

All that Jesus offers is unworkable rhetoric.

Yet those same people will say that God never changes.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mooeypoo

 

I appreciate the fact that you would like me to be quite specific but how can I be when there are a myriad of differing Christian beliefs out there.

 

Most Christians cherry pick so badly that there is hardly anything that we can call a universal Christian belief.

 

I agree with what you describe of moral standards set by God but God not being subject to. A ridiculous stand to me as well as most theists who believe in the as above so below theology. Again, theists are all over the map and ignore scriptures that say that God is supposed to be our example and that we are to emulate him.

 

What I have said to the book itself and how it says to judge it by itself is common knowledge and believing this particular bit, I apply it and find the tree of knowledge as I have described it in the O P.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

 

 

What workes?

All that Jesus offers is unworkable rhetoric.

Yet those same people will say that God never changes.

 

Regards

 

DL

[What workes?] Exactly. Heaven and hell actually was dreamt up by somebody before Jesus, so I guess he can't really take credit for it. It was kind of a good idea, but do you really think God created Heaven and Hell just to satisfy someone in the Bible that hardly anyone can name from memory? I think you really need to get off the whole duality trip altogether because that is one of the things that does not work. (Correction: it still works, but its meaning/parameters have changed, so its hard to prop up any single one standard and relate it to the old standard.) I think the number of people in the world that are truly evil is really small, but that's subject to all kinds of semantics and interpretations and conditions, so I pretty much just stick to current secular law, because that's really all that matters. Who cares about what happened in the caveman era? Who cares about debating caveman politics?

Edited by Realitycheck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see you are still searching. You stated that you have been a atheist for some time and yet you continue to search for truth.

 

In a world filled with so much dishonesty. Are you attempting to convert people to your truth?

 

To have concluded that god does not exist would have taken you a lifetime of research, with all of the variations of religious belief.

 

You stated that (religious groups cherry pick scripture and beliefs, that there is no universal Christian belief. How true, how many have died in the name of there faith.

 

There are fundamentals that all religions agree on. There is a higher power that created all things,

 

A mastermind of our reality. All knowledge of all things that will be. A reward for faith in him/her. And hope, for themselves and those that will come after them.

 

You are compassionate about this subject. You have posted several threads on the subject of religion.

 

I would say keep asking questions, keep searching for the answer to everything.

 

(a·the·ist - unbeliever in God or deities), The definition suggests that the acknowledgment of a god or deities not to believe in. is an acknowledgment of a god or deity? Are you sure you’re an atheist?

Edited by Curiousabout
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[What workes?] Exactly. Heaven and hell actually was dreamt up by somebody before Jesus, so I guess he can't really take credit for it. It was kind of a good idea, but do you really think God created Heaven and Hell just to satisfy someone in the Bible that hardly anyone can name from memory? I think you really need to get off the whole duality trip altogether because that is one of the things that does not work. (Correction: it still works, but its meaning/parameters have changed, so its hard to prop up any single one standard and relate it to the old standard.) I think the number of people in the world that are truly evil is really small, but that's subject to all kinds of semantics and interpretations and conditions, so I pretty much just stick to current secular law, because that's really all that matters. Who cares about what happened in the caveman era? Who cares about debating caveman politics?

 

 

Only those that are presently being hurt by the cavemen.

 

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

 

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

 

They also do much harm to their own.

 

African witches and Jesus

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

 

Jesus Camp 1of 9

 

 

Promoting death to Gays.

 

 

 For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

Fight them when you can. It is your duty to your fellow man.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad to see you are still searching. You stated that you have been a atheist for some time and yet you continue to search for truth.

 

In a world filled with so much dishonesty. Are you attempting to convert people to your truth?

 

To have concluded that god does not exist would have taken you a lifetime of research, with all of the variations of religious belief.

 

You stated that (religious groups cherry pick scripture and beliefs, that there is no universal Christian belief. How true, how many have died in the name of there faith.

 

There are fundamentals that all religions agree on. There is a higher power that created all things,

 

A mastermind of our reality. All knowledge of all things that will be. A reward for faith in him/her. And hope, for themselves and those that will come after them.

 

You are compassionate about this subject. You have posted several threads on the subject of religion.

 

I would say keep asking questions, keep searching for the answer to everything.

 

(a·the·ist - unbeliever in God or deities), The definition suggests that the acknowledgment of a god or deities not to believe in. is an acknowledgment of a god or deity? Are you sure you’re an atheist?

 

I did not say I was an atheist. I call myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.

 

The Godhead I know is just not a miracle working super absentee God.

 

I try to learn more yes. The best way to learn is to teach.

 

Let me give you my quick story.

 

 

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.

 

I was a skeptic till the age of 39.

 

I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.

 

Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

 

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

 

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.

 

This perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

 

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

 

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.

 

This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

 

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

 

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

 

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

 

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship, it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

 

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greatest I am,

 

Not sure what you are meaning by Apotheosis. Seems Wiki says that is the being raised to a divine level.

 

Are you saying that you were raised to such a level for 5 or 6 seconds and now you are back to normal?

 

Personally I had a brief moment on a hilltop in Germany where I "understood" the essential meaning behind "treeness", and though hard to explain, with it came an understanding of how life on Earth grabbed form and structure from a universe whose general direction is toward disorder, and the whole operation (life on Earth) was but a brief moment in the enormity of time an space. I called it an epiphany.

 

I am thinking that perhaps all of us have the capacity for such moments. Maybe we each have had such moments in our lives or will have.

 

It speaks to our nature. That we are part of something AND conscious of it. Both subject and object.

 

I do believe such moments of insight are important in the discussion of religion, because when one person has an insight, it is not always easy to relate this insight to another individual, without misunderstanding.

 

Insights are tricky things. One never knows for sure whether they may be bringing someone to their insight, or whether someone may have already had that particular insight, and is interested in bringing you to a different one, that they have had.

 

For instance, perhaps Moses had such a moment in his trek in the wilderness. He brought back the tablets to bring the insight to others.

 

Or Christ, recognizing where Jews had "fallen from the way".

 

Or Mohammed in the cave, recognizing where idol worshippers had it wrong, and where both Jews and Christians had "fallen from the way".

 

But in all cases, insights are not worth much, when they are somebody elses. They are not insights, until they are yours.

 

Perhaps this is an important thing to remember, when discussing religion. We each have a tendency to consider our own collection of insights, a pretty good approximation of "the way things really are".

 

Important because it is probably true.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to learn more yes. The best way to learn is to teach.

No, the best way to learn a rigid set of rules like science is to teach those rules to others (and even that you only do after you know the basics, and with some supervision to prevent teaching cr** to others).

This isn't a scientific topic with a clear answer, this is a philosophical topic with many available possible opinions.

 

 

The best way to learn each other's opinions is to listen.

 

 

Stop preaching, Greatest I am. We've been giving you ample opportunity to tone things down, but you *are* going against the rules.

 

 

 

We are here to debate, not preach. Ask questions and participate in a discussion. We tell that to theists and we tell that to atheists or agnostics or anyone else.

 

Don't. Preach.

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tar

 

Apotheosis does say raised to a divine level but I would add the word rapprochement to the description. A getting closer.

 

It is an experiencing of the Godhead or cosmic consciousness for sure but only at the bottom of the ladder. So to speak. Somewhat like listening to an expert speaking for 15 minutes. One can get a sense of the issue and how he thinks of it but then if the student wants to know the topic in depth, he must put in many hours of study.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

No, the best way to learn a rigid set of rules like science is to teach those rules to others

 

~mooey

 

Thanks for confirming what I said while denying it.

 

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for confirming what I said while denying it.

 

Regards

DL

 

My requirement that you read and follow the rules was not a request.

 

!

Moderator Note

Greatest I am has had his posting privileges in the Religion, Ethics and Philosophy forums revoked due to his repeated disregard of our etiquette and rules of conduct, and insistence on preaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greatest I am,

 

I know you are probably fuming. Powerless to respond and all...and probably thinking of all kinds of rationales for how you are right and the Science Forum is a bunch of idiots...that you don't need anyway.

 

We all, me especially, would have been better off had you not stepped over the line.

 

Not sure myself where that line is, but I think it goes something like this.

 

If you believe something is true, and you have it right, and everybody else has it wrong...you have an obligation to put your arguments and evidence on the table. Saying it is true, and even drawing further conclusions from this "untested" truth, does not make it true. Arguments and evidence make it true, or at least lend enough veracity for it to be incorporated into the body of knowledge that can be considered scientifically verifiable. (or falsafiable for that matter.)

 

And this is a science forum. There are, as it has been pointed out, other places to preach your religion.

 

Not that points of view are not important to consider. But if someone has a point of view and I ask him why this needs to be the case, and he/she tells me "because an angel told me, or because a voice in my head told me" this does not amount to a whole lot of evidence that I can inspect for myself.

 

You have made many of the same points that I consider "true". I would have rather that you had stayed, to explore where and why religion "really" is true, on what levels, and in what figurative and in what literal senses.

 

Not so important to justify ones own beliefs, as to understand why we have them in the first place.

 

It is already very obvious that people hold "different" beliefs. Very illogical to consider that merely believing something, MAKES it true.

 

True things are already true, or are already possible. Science is after what those things are. And true things are not difficult to point out to people, once discovered, they are already present, and have a consistency that leaves a record for anybody to view. To verify or falsify a belief, merely by looking at the evidence.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very human centric point of view. You will judge everything based on how well it serves you calling it good and evil. God whom you claim defines good and evil, is declared evil by you, because he acted in a way that may have been brutal to some people. You will judge God. It's all about people, and what's in it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.