• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That makes sense to me, sort of.
I hear that the B theory of time is accepted by physicists these days and says that everything has always existed, (if it makes sense to say it that way). Sort of like one big now.
To my way of thinking this is science gone mad, but who am I to say.
It is accepted by some physicists. Not all. In fact they may be a minority.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
When science investigates the question 'why is the sky blue', it is assuming there is a cause, and is looking to understand what that cause is. And, in fact, every phenomenon science chooses to investigate is based on the presumption that there is a cause, and is seeking to understand what that cause it. So I would say that the functionality of science is pretty good evidence that every existential effect has a cause. (The question posed in the OP.) And this is true not just in the physical realm, but in the metaphysical realm as well (the conceptual realm). And logic is how we follow the chain of cause and effect in the conceptual realm.

So there is no shortage of evidence for causation.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
In short, from what I see on this forum, -god needs a cause
-the big bang just happened
OR
-god always existed without cause
-the big bang had to have a cause


That's it in a nut shell :D
The Big Bang is the ultimate cause of everything that exists as we know it. And this then implies that the Big Bang must also have had some sort of cause. But it's hard to say, because that "cause" would not exist as we understand existence. It would have been in some realm prior to existence. And this does not logically make sense. The same goes for a creator God as we commonly conceptualize that ideal (or try to).

The point is that the flow of logic dissipates once we try to conceptualize anything prior to existence as we know it (from the Big Bang onward). So although existence as we know it does indicate that it be 'caused', the truth is that the logic that indicates that falls apart just before reaching that conclusion. And what remains is a complete conceptual blank (or whatever fantasy we choose to put in it's place).
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I really do not need to do so. Your poor understanding has already been refuted. And it is your job to provide the link. Not mine.

Are you forgetting already how the last source that you claimed refuted you? Since you failed in such an epic fashion last time it is safe to conclude that you did so again.
Let me ask you one simple question, When do you think Judea became part of the Roman Empire (not a Roman province)?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Let me ask you one simple question, When do you think Judea became part of the Roman Empire (not a Roman province)?
As you worded it? Never. I think that you mean not as a client state. Rome had taken over Judea before Herod's time. It was a province then. Herod was made king and Judea earned the status of client state. It was semi-independent then and did not pay taxes to Rome. Herod's son failed as a ruler and Rome had to take over again That was when the Census of Quirinius happened.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
As you worded it? Never. I think that you mean not as a client state. Rome had taken over Judea before Herod's time. It was a province then. Herod was made king and Judea earned the status of client state. It was semi-independent then and did not pay taxes to Rome. Herod's son failed as a ruler and Rome had to take over again That was when the Census of Quirinius happened.
My question was not a 'trick question'.

Judea was a client state. But client states paid tribute to Rome, whilst raising taxes under their own authority. This proves the point, made in Luke, that under Herod the Great the form of enrolment for taxation was not Roman, but Jewish!

In Luke 1:5, it says, 'There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:'. This tells us that Luke knew that Herod was king, and that the birth of John took place when Herod was king.

Significantly, Luke tells us that, 'And in the sixth month [of Elizabeth's pregnacy] the angel Gabriel was sent by God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.'

It is following this visit that Mary conceives, and the birth of Jesus occurs approximately six months after the birth of John, Elizabeth's son. This is significant, because it means that if John was born during the reign of Herod, then Jesus was as well. Since we know that the census under Roman provincial rule occurred in 6 CE, there is absolutely no chance that Luke could have been mistaken.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My question was not a 'trick question'.

Judea was a client state. But client states paid tribute to Rome, whilst raising taxes under their own authority. This proves the point, made in Luke, that under Herod the Great the form of enrolment for taxation was not Roman, but Jewish!

In Luke 1:5, it says, 'There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:'. This tells us that Luke knew that Herod was king, and that the birth of John took place when Herod was king.

Significantly, Luke tells us that, 'And in the sixth month [of Elizabeth's pregnacy] the angel Gabriel was sent by God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.'

It is following this visit that Mary conceives, and the birth of Jesus occurs approximately six months after the birth of John, Elizabeth's son. This is significant, because it means that if John was born during the reign of Herod, then Jesus was as well. Since we know that the census under Roman provincial rule occurred in 6 CE, there is absolutely no chance that Luke could have been mistaken.
Now you are attempting to change what it says in Luke. He said the census was ordered by Quirinius. You must remember by now. He did not take over until 6 CE.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Real reality". Isn't real reality what we are experiencing now. If not, why not?
We're experiencing a symbolic world generated in our own minds; a functional illusion.

"Real reality" includes Impossible absurdities like time dilation, Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction, light deflection, relativity of simultaneity, mass-energy equivalence, quantum uncertainty, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, &c.
From our real-world standpoint, none of these make any sense.
"Eppur si muove"
That makes sense to me, sort of.
I hear that the B theory of time is accepted by physicists these days and says that everything has always existed, (if it makes sense to say it that way). Sort of like one big now.
To my way of thinking this is science gone mad, but who am I to say.
Yes, it's counterintuitive, complicated, and seems absurd from a commonsense, everyday perspective, but remember, as I said, the world you see and experience is not "really real."
Relativity is real. It's tested, and used every day. Modern technology depends on it.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Judea was a client state. But client states paid tribute to Rome, whilst raising taxes under their own authority. This proves the point, made in Luke, that under Herod the Great the form of enrolment for taxation was not Roman, but Jewish!

Now you are attempting to change what it says in Luke. He said the census was ordered by Quirinius. You must remember by now. He did not take over until 6 CE.

Subduction Zone Is right, you are trying to rewrite what Luke 2:1 say.

Luke 2:1 clearly stated that the order was by Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria, BUT neither Quirinius‘ governorship, nor his census occur in Judaea until in 6 CE, as Josephus stated 10 years after Herod the Great.

6 CE was also the time Augustus had Archelaus removed from Judaea, annexing the trierarchy as a Roman province. That's when the Roman census took place in Judaea.

No census were carry out when Herod was still alive, and for you to claim that Herod ordered the census, only make the gospel author either wrong or lying.

And in the 6 years of Herod's life, AND IF Jesus was born around this time, Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9 - 7/6 BCE) & Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE) were the ones serving as governors of Syria, not Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (6 - 12 CE).

Josephus mentioned both Saturninus & Varus, and Varus was governor at the time of Herod's death in 4 BCE.

Clearly the author of gospel of Luke didn't know Judaea's history so well at this period, because he mixed the census with Herod's life, and don't understand Roman political systems.

The Romans wouldn't have census on any allied kingdoms or client kingdoms. It is only when they become new provinces that census would be used for taxation purpose.

And since Joseph appeared to be living in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem, according to Luke 2, as a resident of Galilee, Joseph wouldn't need to go to Bethlehem since he owned no property in Bethlehem.

Plus, the Romans wouldn't know about Joseph's ancestral tie to Bethlehem, which make the story in the gospel about traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, pointless.

Edit:

If Christians believed that Christian authors of gospels were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, do you think the author of gospel of Luke would make less mistakes and show less inconsistencies with Judaea and Roman history? Because of these mistakes clearly would show that the Holy Spirit isn't so infallible and inerrant.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone Is right, you are trying to rewrite what Luke 2:1 say.

Luke 2:1 clearly stated that the order was by Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria, BUT neither Quirinius‘ governorship, nor his census occur in Judaea until in 6 CE, as Josephus stated 10 years after Herod the Great.

6 CE was also the time Augustus had Archelaus removed from Judaea, annexing the trierarchy as a Roman province. That's when the Roman census took place in Judaea.

No census were carry out when Herod was still alive, and for you to claim that Herod ordered the census, only make the gospel author either wrong or lying.

And in the 6 years of Herod's life, AND IF Jesus was born around this time, Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9 - 7/6 BCE) & Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE) were the ones serving as governors of Syria, not Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (6 - 12 CE).

Josephus mentioned both Saturninus & Varus, and Varus was governor at the time of Herod's death in 4 BCE.

Clearly the author of gospel of Luke didn't know Judaea's history so well at this period, because he mixed the census with Herod's life, and don't understand Roman political systems.

The Romans wouldn't have census on any allied kingdoms or client kingdoms. It is only when they become new provinces that census would be used for taxation purpose.

And since Joseph appeared to be living in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem, according to Luke 2, as a resident of Galilee, Joseph wouldn't need to go to Bethlehem since he owned no property in Bethlehem.

Plus, the Romans wouldn't know about Joseph's ancestral tie to Bethlehem, which make the story in the gospel about traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, pointless.

Edit:

If Christians believed that Christian authors of gospels were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, do you think the author of gospel of Luke would make less mistakes and show less inconsistencies with Judaea and Roman history? Because of these mistakes clearly would show that the Holy Spirit isn't so infallible and inerrant.
I am about done with this one. It has been fun. I knew of the claims that scholars knew that Luke screwed the pooch royally, but this is the first time I looked up the sources. And I need to thank @Redemptionsong for one of them. I am pretty sure that he just read the title of one source that he claimed. It turns out that it refuted him.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
We're experiencing a symbolic world generated in our own minds; a functional illusion.

"Real reality" includes Impossible absurdities like time dilation, Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction, light deflection, relativity of simultaneity, mass-energy equivalence, quantum uncertainty, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, &c.
From our real-world standpoint, none of these make any sense.
"Eppur si muove"


Real is real even if we cannot understand it.

Yes, it's counterintuitive, complicated, and seems absurd from a commonsense, everyday perspective, but remember, as I said, the world you see and experience is not "really real."
Relativity is real. It's tested, and used every day. Modern technology depends on it.

Real is real even if it is counter intuitive. (that doesn't mean that counter intuitive things are necessarily real however)
There are also many things that people do which don't make sense to us in our everyday lives but people do them all the time and they are part of their reality.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Now you are attempting to change what it says in Luke. He said the census was ordered by Quirinius. You must remember by now. He did not take over until 6 CE.
How can l be changing what Luke says?

Luke does not say that Cyrenius ordered the census! This is what the text says:

Luke 2:1,2. 'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing [or enrolment] was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed [or enrolled], every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)'.

So, the text says, clearly, that the enrolment took place WHEN Cyrenius was governor of Syria. It does not say that Cyrenius ordered, or supervised, the enrolment.

There is debate about the meaning of the Greek wording in parentheses. It could mean the first time that Cyrenius was governor of Syria, or it could mean the first census called when he was governor.

Nor does Luke state exactly when Augustus' decree was made. The decree could have been made some time before the enrolment took place. There is evidence available showing that Augustus calculated the population of the empire on three occasions; in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. On each occasion, the statistics showed the population of the empire to be about 4-5 million inhabitants.

To have successfully calculated the population of the empire, Augustus needed administrative systems in all the provinces and client states. It was the job of Herod the Great to administer his kingdom in an efficient and cooperative manner. If it was deemed that a client king was not acting in a manner pleasing to Rome, then the king could be removed (as happened to Herod's own son, Archelaus).

If you argue that Archelaus took over as ethnarch in an autonomous client state, then why did the Romans remove him? It was the failure of local 'client state' administration under Archelaus that led to Roman intervention and the turning of Judea into a Roman province from 6 CE.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone Is right, you are trying to rewrite what Luke 2:1 say.

Luke 2:1 clearly stated that the order was by Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria, BUT neither Quirinius‘ governorship, nor his census occur in Judaea until in 6 CE, as Josephus stated 10 years after Herod the Great.

6 CE was also the time Augustus had Archelaus removed from Judaea, annexing the trierarchy as a Roman province. That's when the Roman census took place in Judaea.

No census were carry out when Herod was still alive, and for you to claim that Herod ordered the census, only make the gospel author either wrong or lying.

And in the 6 years of Herod's life, AND IF Jesus was born around this time, Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9 - 7/6 BCE) & Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE) were the ones serving as governors of Syria, not Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (6 - 12 CE).

Josephus mentioned both Saturninus & Varus, and Varus was governor at the time of Herod's death in 4 BCE.

Clearly the author of gospel of Luke didn't know Judaea's history so well at this period, because he mixed the census with Herod's life, and don't understand Roman political systems.

The Romans wouldn't have census on any allied kingdoms or client kingdoms. It is only when they become new provinces that census would be used for taxation purpose.

And since Joseph appeared to be living in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem, according to Luke 2, as a resident of Galilee, Joseph wouldn't need to go to Bethlehem since he owned no property in Bethlehem.

Plus, the Romans wouldn't know about Joseph's ancestral tie to Bethlehem, which make the story in the gospel about traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, pointless.

Edit:

If Christians believed that Christian authors of gospels were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, do you think the author of gospel of Luke would make less mistakes and show less inconsistencies with Judaea and Roman history? Because of these mistakes clearly would show that the Holy Spirit isn't so infallible and inerrant.
Please read my response to Subduction Zone.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How can l be changing what Luke says?

Luke does not say that Cyrenius ordered the census! This is what the text says:

Luke 2:1,2. 'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing [or enrolment] was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed [or enrolled], every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)'.

So, the text says, clearly, that the enrolment took place WHEN Cyrenius was governor of Syria. It does not say that Cyrenius ordered, or supervised, the enrolment.

There is debate about the meaning of the Greek wording in parentheses. It could mean the first time that Cyrenius was governor of Syria, or it could mean the first census called when he was governor.

Nor does Luke state exactly when Augustus' decree was made. The decree could have been made some time before the enrolment took place. There is evidence available showing that Augustus calculated the population of the empire on three occasions; in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. On each occasion, the statistics showed the population of the empire to be about 4-5 million inhabitants.

To have successfully calculated the population of the empire, Augustus needed administrative systems in all the provinces and client states. It was the job of Herod the Great to administer his kingdom in an efficient and cooperative manner. If it was deemed that a client king was not acting in a manner pleasing to Rome, then the king could be removed (as happened to Herod's own son, Archelaus).

If you argue that Archelaus took over as ethnarch in an autonomous client state, then why did the Romans remove him? It was the failure of local 'client state' administration under Archelaus that led to Roman intervention and the turning of Judea into a Roman province from 6 CE.
Tell me when you are ready to argue logically and consistently.

This one you lost. Are you ready to try another?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member

Real is real even if we cannot understand it.
Not sure I follow.
There a different realities; several subjective realities and an Objective Reality.
Engineers, chemists and physicists "understand" it well enough to utilize it, but they can't "perceive" it; they don't grok it. They use relativity and quantum mechanics to create GPS, computers, mobile phones, &c, but they remain counterintuitive and unimaginable, despite their Reality.
Real is real even if it is counter intuitive. (that doesn't mean that counter intuitive things are necessarily real however)
There are also many things that people do which don't make sense to us in our everyday lives but people do them all the time and they are part of their reality.
I'm not talking about about personal perceptions, experiences, or interpretations. I'm talking about time flowing at different rates in different places, things being in two places at once, instant communication across a hundred thousand light years, objects changing shape as they accelerate, something moving from one place to another without crossing the intervening distance, without actually "moving," as it were; about something "existing" as a potential, &c. This is modern, tested, physics -- Real Reality.
Our senses and brains are not wired to directly perceive Reality.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
How can l be changing what Luke says?

Luke does not say that Cyrenius ordered the census! This is what the text says:

Luke 2:1,2. 'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing [or enrolment] was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed [or enrolled], every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)'.

So, the text says, clearly, that the enrolment took place WHEN Cyrenius was governor of Syria. It does not say that Cyrenius ordered, or supervised, the enrolment.

There is debate about the meaning of the Greek wording in parentheses. It could mean the first time that Cyrenius was governor of Syria, or it could mean the first census called when he was governor.

Nor does Luke state exactly when Augustus' decree was made. The decree could have been made some time before the enrolment took place. There is evidence available showing that Augustus calculated the population of the empire on three occasions; in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. On each occasion, the statistics showed the population of the empire to be about 4-5 million inhabitants.

To have successfully calculated the population of the empire, Augustus needed administrative systems in all the provinces and client states. It was the job of Herod the Great to administer his kingdom in an efficient and cooperative manner. If it was deemed that a client king was not acting in a manner pleasing to Rome, then the king could be removed (as happened to Herod's own son, Archelaus).

If you argue that Archelaus took over as ethnarch in an autonomous client state, then why did the Romans remove him? It was the failure of local 'client state' administration under Archelaus that led to Roman intervention and the turning of Judea into a Roman province from 6 CE.

Please read my response to Subduction Zone.

I have read your reply to Subduction Zone, and like always, you are still making scenarios up to suit your belief, that don’t exist in any of the sources.

If the external Roman sources or Jewish sources contradict the gospels, or prove the gospel events (the Nativity of Jesus) wrong, then you should simply accept it, try to understand it, rather than making excuses or trying to change it to suit the gospels.

You are allowing your faith and biases for the gospels, that prevents you from seeing the flaws and contradictions of gospels. You are attempting to rewrite the gospels, rewrite history, in order to justify your beliefs in your gospels

You do this time and time again.

There was no world or empire-wide census, at any time, in the last years of Herod’s life (9 - 4 BCE), nor did it happen when Judaea became a Roman province in 6 CE, at the time Quirinius or Cyrenius became governor of Syria, after ousting Archelaus, Herod’s son, from Judaea.

Judaea was a new province in 6CE, that’s why a census was ordered by Augustus. People living in Galilee weren’t required to enroll, so the story of Joseph & Mary travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem is crap and fictional.

Plus, Josephus only recorded a single census being carried out in 6 CE; there were no new census for Syria and other provinces in the empire that year, just Judaea alone.

There were no other census carried by the Romans, while Herod was alive and reigning, and certainly not during the time when Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE) was governor of Syria. Josephus did recall there was a rebellion after Herod’s death, which Varus crushed. Quirinius wasn’t in Syria. He was governor of Galatea from 12 to 1 BCE, and was in charge of legions to quell insurrection from mountain tribe in Cappadocia and Cilicia when Herod was still alive.

You are only inventing story about Augustus’ timing of census enrollment. Josephus made it quite clear that census was carried out because Archelaus was ordered out of Judaea and Judaea became a new province.

Stop creating fairytale.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Judaea was a new province in 6CE, that’s why a census was ordered by Augustus. People living in Galilee weren’t required to enroll, so the story of Joseph & Mary travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem is crap and fictional.
Maybe you should take a little more time to research your topic properly. Try getting a copy of Flavius Josephus' works so that you can read a detailed and reliable history of these times.

Josephus gives us a very accurate account of the taxation in 6 CE. He also tells us about the uprising against this taxation by Judas of Galilee.

Now, funnily enough, Luke, who you choose to disparage, also writes about the 6 CE taxation, and about the uprising of Judas of Galilee. Read Acts 5:33-40.

Once you've read it, get back to me.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
When science investigates the question 'why is the sky blue', it is assuming there is a cause, and is looking to understand what that cause is. And, in fact, every phenomenon science chooses to investigate is based on the presumption that there is a cause, and is seeking to understand what that cause it. So I would say that the functionality of science is pretty good evidence that every existential effect has a cause. (The question posed in the OP.) And this is true not just in the physical realm, but in the metaphysical realm as well (the conceptual realm). And logic is how we follow the chain of cause and effect in the conceptual realm.

Except that when there are cause (though some thing are uncause), it is always in term of HOW it work, hence they are looking into the functions or the mechanisms of the phenomena, and not worry about purposes, especially not intention-based purpose that required agent or entity to think or to decide.

The problem with YOUR USE of purpose, it is ladled with vague notion of intentions, which can be misleading.

Does a rock have intention of being use part of structure like a wall to a building or to a fence? Is that the purpose of the rock? Can a rock decide on its own purpose?

Now people may choose to use rocks for construction, but that’s the purposes of the owner, the builder, etc, but people weren’t always around when rocks formed. Rocks make no decisions as to how they formed, or how they are being used, because the rocks don’t have intentions.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Maybe you should take a little more time to research your topic properly. Try getting a copy of Flavius Josephus' works so that you can read a detailed and reliable history of these times.

Josephus gives us a very accurate account of the taxation in 6 CE. He also tells us about the uprising against this taxation by Judas of Galilee.

Now, funnily enough, Luke, who you choose to disparage, also writes about the 6 CE taxation, and about the uprising of Judas of Galilee. Read Acts 5:33-40.

Once you've read it, get back to me.

I am quite with Roman history and Roman politics, foreign and domestic.

And btw, no one really know who wrote any of the four canonical gospels. The authors are unknown. Names were only applied to these gospels in the 2nd century CE, so the names were only attributed to these 4 evangelists, by church traditions.

Josephus as you already know have parents who belonged to aristocratic family and to the priesthood, so Josephus would have access to sources not available by Christian authors that we know nothing about. Plus, Josephus have tie to the emperor Vespasian, especially to the emperor’s son, Titus, so he would easily have access to Roman sources, especially to government records that wouldn’t be available to 1st century Christians.

Plus, whoever wrote gospels of Matthew and Luke during the 80s CE, I don’t see how the authors could receive dictations from Jesus’ parents or from Herod, or from the unnamed 3 sages from the East and the unnamed shepherds of Bethlehem who supposedly witnessed the performance of the angelic host. Clearly the stories of the 3 wise men (presumably to be astrologers) and the host of angels were invention of the author to Luke.

Joseph appeared to have died before Jesus began his ministry, while we have no texts that she lived beyond the 30s CE. So I don’t see how whoever wrote the gospel of Luke, what Mary remembered “in her heart”.
 
Top