Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Apparently...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • skypair
    started a topic Apparently...

    Apparently...

    A Calvinist could not have chosen NOT to believe the gospel, eh? And not to receive regeneration, salvation, faith, etc. How would they prove such a thing?

    skypair

  • TomL
    replied
    Originally posted by ladodgers6 View Post

    Ah! Skynet, this comment shows me that you do not understand Redemption. And insist that Faith is what saves us, really? Its the object of our Faith that saves; namely Christ Jesus. I'll put it another way. Our Faith does not make a bad doctor, into a good doctor!
    Skynet ?

    Terminator much

    Leave a comment:


  • ladodgers6
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    A Calvinist could not have chosen NOT to believe the gospel, eh? And not to receive regeneration, salvation, faith, etc. How would they prove such a thing?

    skypair
    Ah! Skynet, this comment shows me that you do not understand Redemption. And insist that Faith is what saves us, really? Its the object of our Faith that saves; namely Christ Jesus. I'll put it another way. Our Faith does not make a bad doctor, into a good doctor!

    Leave a comment:


  • Theo1689
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    Have you ever heard of the concept that we believe only what we want to believe?
    Is that why you reject God's truth?
    Maybe you've got something there...

    Leave a comment:


  • Theo1689
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    Have you ever heard of the concept that we believe only what we want to believe? There is probably a good reason in your mind to believe Calvinism but God didn't make or cause you to believe it. And you are double wrong in that you think you have no other choice bu to believe Calvinism!
    Please lose the lame armchair psychology.
    Nobody's interested.

    First off, theo .. you would have to want Him to change your heart.
    So you believe God is limited to and enslaved by my will?
    No wonder you can NEVER be my "teacher".

    Let me ask you, when was the last time you received and accepted something from someone that you didn't want?
    Just now, when you posted this post.

    Thank you, but you insist that they do believe in Christ, right?
    I insist that they WILL believe in Christ.

    So are you saying that grace + regeneration = salvation? Faith is not required.
    Wrong again.
    Faith is a VERY important aspect of Calvinism.

    Are you ignorant of Calvinism, or are you intentionally misrepresenting it?

    No one is rejection Eph 2:8. Have you heard that "gift" is neuter and "faith" is masculine so faith isn't the gift?
    I read Greek.
    And I've heard it over a hundred times.
    And just about every time I've heard it, it came from a person who DOESN'T understanding Greek.

    What they don't understand is that "saved" is FEMININE (not neuter), so you can't argue that the gift is "salvation.

    The resolution is that the gift is none of the individual parts, but that the gift is the WHOLE of "by grace you have been saved through faith", and that whole thing INCLUDES faith, which is a GIFT.

    That faith is a gift is simply CONFIRMED in Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, and 1 Cor. 4:7.

    Leave a comment:


  • skypair
    replied
    Originally posted by Theo1689 View Post
    God saves us by CAUSING us to believe, by GIVING us faith (Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, etc.)
    Have you ever heard of the concept that we believe only what we want to believe? There is probably a good reason in your mind to believe Calvinism but God didn't make or cause you to believe it. And you are double wrong in that you think you have no other choice bu to believe Calvinism!

    EVERYONE "resists the gospel", and then those God ELECTS, He GIVES them faith so that they NO LONGER "resist the gospel".
    That's called REGENERATION.
    That's when GOD changes our heart.
    First off, theo .. you would have to want Him to change your heart. What don't you understand about this: You can't receive what you don't want unless someone had tricked you into taking it? Just like the Arminians before them, the Calvinists convinced you to want to believe them instead.

    Let me ask you, when was the last time you received and accepted something from someone that you didn't want?

    Some who believe Calvinism are not regenerated.
    Thank you, but you insist that they do believe in Christ, right?

    You refuse to admit the FACT that we can believe the theology AND be regenerated.
    Actually, no. There are some in Sardis "who have not soiled the garments." (Rev 3:6) Most of them were saved and then started being sanctified in Calvinist churches. A lot of those wanted to be preachers and pastors and Calvinism is so easy to explain. In addition, it is very fruitful reproducing its own false fruit at e prodigious rate.

    It's not "through faith AND grace".
    It's through faith BECAUSE of grace.
    ONE thing, not two.
    So are you saying that grace + regeneration = salvation? Faith is not required.

    If you are going to reject Eph. 2:8, it's no wonder you can NEVER be our "teacher".
    No one is rejection Eph 2:8. Have you heard that "gift" is neuter and "faith" is masculine so faith isn't the gift? The explanation continues by asserting that the process "by grace are you saved through grace" is what the gift is. And, of course, the grace that saves is the gospel. And the gospel is Acts 2:36-40. We know this for sure. The evidence is in and 3000 people were saved.

    skypair

    Leave a comment:


  • skypair
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    And we're done here. That comment is so disingenuous it betrays any possibility of cogent discourse.
    That is the real issue, isn't it. It's not disingenuous at all. If a Calvinist is not regenerate, then he may not believe in Christ even though he is a Calvinist and even though he thinks he is regenerate.

    Calvinists are Christians.
    Sardis Christians, yeah. Rev 3:1

    ... but that is not what this op asks. It stipulates "Calvinist" and Calvinists are Christians who have by definition had all of those conditions accomplished in their life. To say or in any way imply otherwise is to be self-contradictory and thereby self-refuting.
    How many denominations call themselves "Christian" whose "believers" are not saved? Christian doesn't mean saved. It means belief in Christ.

    skypair

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    I never in the OP suggested that the Calvinist in question was regenerate.
    And we're done here. That comment is so disingenuous it betrays any possibility of cogent discourse.



    Calvinists are Christians.
    Christians are saved (or at least converted from death to life).
    The saved/converted are regenerate.



    Had you asked something like, "Do Calvinists believe a person who believes s/he is saved can choose not to believe the gospel, can choose not to receive regeneration, salvation, faith, etc.?" but that is not what this op asks. It stipulates "Calvinist" and Calvinists are Christians who have by definition had all of those conditions accomplished in their life. To say or in any way imply otherwise is to be self-contradictory and thereby self-refuting. And if you're going to be rude and just say Calvinists are Christians then nothing any of us have to post will make any difference and you've been disingenuous from the beginning.



    You did "suggest" the Calvinist in question was regenerate and to deny that fact makes you false. I'm willing to have the conversation this op begs but only with honest and sincere posters (who don't deny their own content or lack thereof). Acknowledge the error and correct it or I'll be moving on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Theo1689
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    OK, so basically this goes with your statement "Fail. God can do anything He desires and at no point is God ever dependent upon anything human." Sooo .. salvation doesn't depend on anything human, right?
    Correct.

    So God can save us even if we don't believe, right? Well, I He could do that .. but does He?
    God saves us by CAUSING us to believe, by GIVING us faith (Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, etc.)

    So your criticism is on the same basis as "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?"

    I think you will have to agree that at the very least, we cannot resist the gospel and expect be saved, right?
    But that is NOT the "determiner" of salvation.

    We don't "undo" salvation by "resisting the gospel".
    We can't get "unsaved" by "resisting the gospel".

    EVERYONE "resists the gospel", and then those God ELECTS, He GIVES them faith so that they NO LONGER "resist the gospel".
    That's called REGENERATION.
    That's when GOD changes our heart.

    Whether we get saved or not ultimately depends on us, not on God alone.
    Wrong.

    I never in the OP suggested that the Calvinist in question was regenerate.
    <Chuckle>
    Of course not.
    You simply assume all Calvinists are unsaved.
    That's okay, our salvation does not require your "approval".

    I think there has been an honest misunderstanding here. Would you like to answer the original post?
    He already has.
    The fact that you simply don't LIKE his answer, doesn't mean that he hasn't answered you.

    No. Again you have failed to understand Calvinist soteriology. The entire concept of "force" is misguided. If nothing else it assumes conscious wants or desires that don't exist and those non-existing volitions being coerced. That isn't Calvinism at all.
    According to Calvinists, until they are regenerate, they do not desire or want to be saved nor to know God. I'm actually talking about someone who simply believes the theology, Josh.
    One is not saved by "believing theology".
    That holds true for Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians, skypairians, ANYONE.

    NO CALVINIST believes we are saved based on "believing theology".

    Even in the OP. Do you think that someone who believes Calvinism is regenerated?
    Many who believe Calvinism are regenerated (although you seem not to want to accept that).
    Some who believe Calvinism are not regenerated.

    No, it says that of the OT saints when they are resurrected into the MK. Now that giving of the new heart replacing the old heart is true for us one we have repented, "Repent ... and receive the Holy Spirit." (Acts2:38) Titus 3:5 says that regeneration is a function of the Holy Spirit through the "washing" us first.
    You keep ripping those passage out of context.
    Acts 2:38 is NOT about "regeneration" (I've had to point that out to you HUNDREDS of times already).

    Just as man is in charge of his own mind,
    A false and unBiblical claim.

    he is in charge of his own heart.
    A false and unBiblical claim.

    If God was in charge of your mind and heart, you could be sinless like Jesus.
    A false and unBiblical claim.

    The Calvinist I am talking about believes the theology and I know that doesn't regenerate him.
    You refuse to admit the FACT that we can believe the theology AND be regenerated.

    That's an interesting statement considering "grace alone through faith alone." So neither one is really alone?
    You seem not to understand the "sola's".
    There are FIVE solas, so many ignorant people think that is somehow a "contradiction".

    The five solas answer five DIFFERENT questions.

    It's not "through faith AND grace".
    It's through faith BECAUSE of grace.
    ONE thing, not two.

    If you are going to reject Eph. 2:8, it's no wonder you can NEVER be our "teacher".

    Or is there some confusion about which one saves? Is it grace that pleases God, then, and not faith, Heb 11:6?
    We are saved BECAUSE of grace.
    We are saved THROUGH faith.
    We are saved BY Christ.

    The only one with any "confusion" in this matter, is YOU.
    But you seem unwilling to accept it.

    Hmmm, that only applies if faith isn't simple belief. Belief gives us the power to be saved, Ro 1:16.
    Wrong again.
    Rom. 1:16 NEVER says, "belief gives us the power to be saved".

    But you seem to use belief interchangeably with faith.
    And you seem to be making a false dichotomy between "pistis" and "pistis".

    Well, we can't know what someone might do in the future, true. But we can say presently whether someone or ourselves are saved else there is no such thing as assurance of salvation, right?
    Wrong.
    You are confused YET AGAIN.
    Nothing in the Bible teaches us that we can have "assurance" of someone ELSE'S salvation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    According to Calvinists, until they are regenerate, they do not desire or want to be saved nor to know God. I'm actually talking about someone who simply believes the theology, Josh.
    No, you are not.

    That may be what you meant to ask, but that is not what this op actually asks. The op isn't about believing in order to be regenerate. This op specifically stipulated regeneration as a given.

    When you ask questions after the fact as if that isn't what is actually stated in the op you are moving the goal posts.

    And you don't get to do that and then argue about others not answering your questions.



    Now, once you actually deal with the givens you'll learn the answers to your questions.

    Leave a comment:


  • skypair
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Furthermore, Calvinists don't claim to be able to refuse to be regenerated.
    OK, so basically this goes with your statement "Fail. God can do anything He desires and at no point is God ever dependent upon anything human." Sooo .. salvation doesn't depend on anything human, right? So God can save us even if we don't believe, right? Well, I He could do that .. but does He? I think you will have to agree that at the very least, we cannot resist the gospel and expect be saved, right? Whether we get saved or not ultimately depends on us, not on God alone.

    I explained in at least three different ways and not a single one of those avenues has received a cogent response.
    I never in the OP suggested that the Calvinist in question was regenerate. And I noticed afterward that your replies did not answer to the facts of the OP.

    This appears to be your 3 answers:
    And I once again repeat something very important: you moved the goal posts. This op explicitly stipulates the Calvinist has already been regenerated. This op explicitly stipulates the Calvinist has already been regenerated but many of your comments and inquiries are couched in a pre-salvation and/or pre-regenerate state. In all such cases you are off-topic in your own op!. Furthermore, in order to question whether an already regenerate person (Calvinist or not) can reject God's work (because regeneration is entirely God's word, we do not regenerate ourselves) you first have show such a condition exists in scripture. If there is no scriptural precedent for a regenerate believer to un-regenerate himself the entire inquiry is a red herring...
    I think there has been an honest misunderstanding here. Would you like to answer the original post?

    [quote[No. Again you have failed to understand Calvinist soteriology. The entire concept of "force" is misguided. If nothing else it assumes conscious wants or desires that don't exist and those non-existing volitions being coerced. That isn't Calvinism at all.[/quote]
    According to Calvinists, until they are regenerate, they do not desire or want to be saved nor to know God. I'm actually talking about someone who simply believes the theology, Josh. Even in the OP. Do you think that someone who believes Calvinism is regenerated? Is that the misunderstanding?

    No, scripture says God gives us a new heart.
    No, it says that of the OT saints when they are resurrected into the MK. Now that giving of the new heart replacing the old heart is true for us one we have repented, "Repent ... and receive the Holy Spirit." (Acts2:38) Titus 3:5 says that regeneration is a function of the Holy Spirit through the "washing" us first.

    It quite plainly states God does the giving/changing and nowhere in the entirety of the Bible does the Bible ever report human will making that change.
    Just as man is in charge of his own mind, he is in charge of his own heart. If God was in charge of your mind and heart, you could be sinless like Jesus. You're not, are you? You do make your own decisions even now that you are saved.

    I have answered and addressed everything you've posted to me.
    It is pretty clear to me that you have misunderstood the OP and that has been the basis for all of your answers that is why I questioned you on your answers.

    The regenerate are already regenerate so there is no choosing not to "receive" that which is already received. Any unregeneration would necessarily be something other than a lack of "receive."
    See, here your misunderstanding that I said the Calvinist was regenerated already is again demonstrated by your answer.The Calvinist I am talking about believes the theology and I know that doesn't regenerate him.

    The saved are already saved and that salvation came by grace through faith, not by faith.
    That's an interesting statement considering "grace alone through faith alone." So neither one is really alone? Or is there some confusion about which one saves? Is it grace that pleases God, then, and not faith, Heb 11:6?

    Nowhere does scripture make a causal link between faith and salvation . It is always a correlation, not a causation.
    Hmmm, that only applies if faith isn't simple belief. Belief gives us the power to be saved, Ro 1:16. But you seem to use belief interchangeably with faith.

    Lastly, no one can prove his own eternal disposition to another.
    Well, we can't know what someone might do in the future, true. But we can say presently whether someone or ourselves are saved else there is no such thing as assurance of salvation, right?

    skypair

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    You apparently missed my reply where I said that the purpose of the OP was to get Calvinists to explain something that couldn't be explained.
    Nonsense. I addressed it and I addressed it quite decisively. If you missed it then 1) that is entirely on you, 2) you've no business demanding parity where you provided noen yourself, and 3) you've evidenced that which you now report to disdain.
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    If they could refuse to be regenerated, then their entire soteriology fails, right?
    Nope.

    Again: I have also explained this to you and that explanation sits silently ignored while you false protest I haven't answered and addressed your inquiries.

    Furthermore, Calvinists don't claim to be able to refuse to be regenerated. You asked a question that is entirely straw man. I also explained that to you and that too has been ignored. I explained in at least three different ways and not a single one of those avenues has received a cogent response. These too are ways in which your protest I purportedly haven't replied prove hypocritical: I did reply and it is you who is failing the conversation.
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    And why can't they choose not to be regenerated? B/c it is forced upon them, no? just like salvation itself.
    No. Again you have failed to understand Calvinist soteriology. The entire concept of "force" is misguided. If nothing else it assumes conscious wants or desires that don't exist and those non-existing volitions being coerced. That isn't Calvinism at all.
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    And to make it even more foolish, they say that God changes their heart in regeneration...
    No, scripture says God gives us a new heart. It quite plainly states God does the giving/changing and nowhere in the entirety of the Bible does the Bible ever report human will making that change.

    Calvinists simply stand firmly on those facts and do not embellish further.

    If you think otherwise then you (once again) do not correctly understand Calvinism.
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    He can only change their mind by showing them the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    Fail. God can do anything He desires and at no point is God ever dependent upon anything human.
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    I think you can admit that, can't you?
    Nope. I find your ideas about Calvinist soteriology to be perverse. They are perversions of scripture and also perversions of Calvinism.




    And I once again repeat something very important: you moved the goal posts. This op explicitly stipulates the Calvinist has already been regenerated. This op explicitly stipulates the Calvinist has already been regenerated but many of your comments and inquiries are couched in a pre-salvation and/or pre-regenerate state. In all such cases you are off-topic in your own op!. Furthermore, in order to question whether an already regenerate person (Calvinist or not) can reject God's work (because regeneration is entirely God's word, we do not regenerate ourselves) you first have show such a condition exists in scripture. If there is no scriptural precedent for a regenerate believer to un-regenerate himself the entire inquiry is a red herring....



    ...and you, skypair, have yet to provide any such justification for such inquiries and comments. The entire inquiry is a red herring and the attempt to push forward with the red herring is repeatedly predicated upon straw man perversions of Calvinism.

    I tell you this and then the response is falsely, "You haven't answered my questions." I have answered and addressed everything you've posted to me. You are the one who has not provided parity. You haven't provided parity with my replies directly to this op and you haven't provided parity to the answers to your subsequent inquiries. The off-topic content was briefly indulged expressly so oyou wouldn't be able to say, "You're not answering my questions," but you've falsely done so otherwise. As a consequence I have told you the off-topic content will be ignored. You have op-relevant concerns awaiting your response. Stop the hypocrisy and address those concerns:
    There is no scriptural precedent for a regenerate believer to will his/her own un-regeneration.

    Even if such an occurrence were possible it would not negate the fact the experience is recorded in memory at a cellular level making any choice not to believe a delusion.

    The regenerate are already regenerate so there is no choosing not to "receive" that which is already received. Any unregeneration would necessarily be something other than a lack of "receive."

    The saved are already saved and that salvation came by grace through faith, not by faith. Nowhere does scripture make a causal link between faith and salvation . It is always a correlation, not a causation. The salvation that is by grace through faith comes at a price (the shed blood of Christ) solely according to the will and purpose of God and not will or purpose of a finite creature can ever overcome the infinite will and purposes of the Creator. It is self-contradictory to think otherwise. There are only three options and I have already cited them. You've ignored them.

    Lastly, no one can prove his own eternal disposition to another. To think such a thing can be proven among the finite - especially those who have a perverted understanding of scripture and constantly pervert Calvinism - is nonsensical. It evidences a failure in understand the soteriological aspect of eternity and vice versa. The finite can never prove the infinite. And this too you have ignored.
    So all this time you've been complaining I'm not responding only shows your own hypocrisy. There is a pile of content screaming for your response and your pretending like it is not there. You'll get no further response until you start dealing with that content and doing so in a manner that is no longer hypocritical and no longer misrepresentative of Calvinism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Theo1689
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    You apparently missed my reply where I said that the purpose of the OP was to get Calvinists to explain something that couldn't be explained.
    You seem to be under the misapprehension that just because you "said" something, everyone is blindly required to accept it, even though it's not the least bit Biblical.

    If they could refuse to be regenerated, then their entire soteriology fails, right? And why can't they choose not to be regenerated? B/c it is forced upon them, no? just like salvation itself.
    Well, NOWHERE does the Bible teach that people "could refuse to be regenerated".
    And it's a ridiculous notion on its face.
    But since it can't be found anywhere in the Bible, we are perfectly justified in rejecting your FALSE teachings.


    I do want to comment on your misuse of the phrase, "forced upon them".
    Regeneration is NOT "forced upon" anyone.
    "Force" implies violence, and no violence is done.

    A more precise and accurate term would be that we are NECESSARILY regenerated, which accurately describes the efficacy and unconditional nature of regeneration, without implying false ideas of "violence" or "force".

    And to make it even more foolish, they say that God changes their heart in regeneration .. as if they know what the heart is. Actually, at the very first level, He can only change their mind by showing them the gospel of Jesus Christ. But then .. that is what a Calvinist calls salvation. I think you can admit that, can't you?
    skypair
    No, we refuse to "admit" what is a FALSE TEACHING on your part, no matter how much you want us to.

    Will YOU "admit" that 2 + 2 = 193?
    No?

    Will YOU "admit" that the current U.S. President is Rob Reiner?
    No?

    Then neither will WE "admit" your false teachings are true, because they aren't.

    Leave a comment:


  • skypair
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Second, all the subsequent comments and inquiries I received were off-topic of the op and my response thereof. I did my part to steer the discussion back to the op-reply relevant content in this op but to know avail. That too is, by definition, not serious discussion of the op.
    You apparently missed my reply where I said that the purpose of the OP was to get Calvinists to explain something that couldn't be explained. If they could refuse to be regenerated, then their entire soteriology fails, right? And why can't they choose not to be regenerated? B/c it is forced upon them, no? just like salvation itself.

    And to make it even more foolish, they say that God changes their heart in regeneration .. as if they know what the heart is. Actually, at the very first level, He can only change their mind by showing them the gospel of Jesus Christ. But then .. that is what a Calvinist calls salvation. I think you can admit that, can't you?

    skypair

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by skypair View Post
    Were we not having a serious discussion until you decided not to answer my serious reply?

    skypair
    That depends on how "serious discussion" is to be construed. I didn't consider attempts at digress ion to be serious discussion.

    First, what I posted first has been ignored entirely. The content of my op and its supporting posts sits in silence awaiting your relevant and cogent response. That silence is - by definition - not serious discussion of the op.

    Second, all the subsequent comments and inquiries I received were off-topic of the op and my response thereof. I did my part to steer the discussion back to the op-reply relevant content in this op but to know avail. That too is, by definition, not serious discussion of the op.

    Third, any attempt to characterize either the ignoring of valid and veracious op-relevant op-replies or digressions from the op as serious discussion is false. That too is, by definition, not serious discussion of the op.



    We could seriously discuss the irrelevant content and perhaps that would be a serious discussion, but it would nt be a discussion of the valid and veracious concerns I brought to bear on this op. So, no, we were not having a serious discussion when op-irrelevant content was posted (and I then decided after much effort to get on topic to ignore the off-topic content).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X