Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: The Bible
Thread: The Bible This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT»
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted January 13, 2004 10:07 PM

The Bible

So, the Bible has come up yet again.  The discussion is heated, and I think it might help to draw out people's varying attitudes towards this particular book.

How do you see the Bible?  How important is it to you?  Does it affect your life?


======
Laying my own cards on the table -- I'm a polytheistic pagan as well as a student of the classics.  This means I view the Bible in the following ways:

1)  The Bible is not a religiously charged work.  While I have respect for those who accept it as divinely revealed, the book is quite simply irrelevant to my religion and my life.

2) The Bible is an ancient document, although one well out of my area of familiarity.  Therefore, I am inclined to view it as a product of the culture in which it was written, just as I look at Greek and Roman documents as products of their respective cultures.

3) The Bible is a collection of mythology, history, law, poetry, and various other genres.  As such, it may be used as an authority on the above subjects as regards the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians.  However, science is out of its field.  It is not an authority in cosmology, astronomy, biology, or any other discipline for which ancient documents are not accepted as legitimate authorities.

Obviously, these views limit the scope of the Bible much more than those of the typical Christian.  I prefer not to interfere with debates regarding spiritual interpretation, morality as dictated by the Bible, internal consistency, quote-swapping, and other stuff like that.  As an outsider to the living religious tradition, my opinions on these matters is irrelevant and intrusive.  Only when Biblical debate expands outside of it's "domain" do I object.  I draw the line at applying Biblical standards to my own morality and using Biblical mythology in place of scientific study (i.e. creationism).

No, I don't always follow my own rule of non-interferance, but that's my goal.  So, while I've started this topic because I see a need for it, I don't anticipate being a major participant in any resulting discussion.  
======
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
consis
consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted January 14, 2004 06:29 AM

Flawed Logic

Quote:
So, while I've started this topic because I see a need for it, I don't anticipate being a major participant in any resulting discussion.  
======


Ok how completely flawed is it to start a thread and then say that you won't be commenting on it? You've got some "issues" to work out if you're afraid to post in your own thread.

Khaelo,

Your thoughts on the bible are mine. I agree and feel the same as you on the subject but stand up for what you believe in. Donot fear retribution in your beliefs. Be a strong person and when you're finished expressing your thoughts on a topic remind yourself that you are you. It takes a great deal courage to tell other people how you feel and what you think. You are a good person with a good heart. Be proud of who you are! I am honored to post in your thread if you will honorably stand up for you believe is right. That is....That which compels you to be your own unique individual. Do what you do and think not the lesser for it. Others will see your true beauty but only if you have the courage to show it. That's a very attractive quality in a person. If nothing else, To thine own self be true.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Tyler
Tyler


Known Hero
posted January 14, 2004 02:05 PM

Quote:

1)  The Bible is not a religiously charged work.  While I have respect for those who accept it as divinely revealed, the book is quite simply irrelevant to my religion and my life.
Quote:


Hmmm "divinely revealed" i wonder what does that mean...
I guess when u first ask yourself about the hole bilble and religion thing, there is the momoent when u really start to develop a brain and your own personality. Crucial time in a person's life.


PS : Oh and the bible sucks
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted January 14, 2004 05:07 PM

where's the problem?

Quote:
Ok how completely flawed is it to start a thread and then say that you won't be commenting on it? You've got some "issues" to work out if you're afraid to post in your own thread.

I'm not afraid to post here.    All I wanted was to get the Bible issues that are running around other threads, currently "Gay People" but others as well, somewhat centralized.  I guess I envisioned it as a discussion for Christians who have different interpretations of their holy scripture (i.e. Thunder and Romana in the other thread).  It is odd that such a thread was started by someone who's relatively apathetic about the Bible; you're right about that.  However, no one else seemed to be doing anything about getting Bible debates out of the morality threads and into somewhere more appropriate.

The problem with Bible debates in the morality threads:  If you declare that wearing purple socks is morally wrong for logical reasons, others can answer you on the same grounds.  If you announce that God said in the Bible that purple socks are wrong, than there is no way for others to deal with that without confronting the Bible itself.  When peope attempt to do so, a whole host of issues appear out of nowhere, including theology and scriptural interpretations.  Most of these are quite simply irrelevant to many with interest in the original topic.

Quote:
Your thoughts on the bible are mine. I agree and feel the same as you on the subject but stand up for what you believe in. <snip>

I did.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
Cold frog
HC SUPPORTER
posted January 14, 2004 05:53 PM

1: The selections, and order, was decided by the same people who held the offices of bishop, pope, ect, who riled up the crusaders to KILL INNOCENTS!!! Although, the felt (ie) cathars were diseases, the laid out entire civilizations. The crusaders killed kids, wives, they raped, ect.

2: Cathars belived Christianity is materialistic.
is there a thing, the word of man can say or write, that is not?

3: If anyone was blood relative to important people (ie people in the bible, and even witnesses to the crusifiction) do you not think, that over these times people alive today would say "I'm related, my father is related to mark, the gospel person.

4: We the men and women of earth are not half noah. Hence, the great flood in the near east/mesopatamia, was not a world flood but the bible stories lead us to assume this!

5: Men and women usualy have the same amount of ribs. If theres a difference it's like an extra finger. Christians generaly think men have 1 less.
A: But If, adams rib was taken, it would not have changed his biogenetical properties.
B: Its messed up that this myth helps christians belive because it is 100% not true.

I could go on...

Summary, bible is materialistic

If theres a god, and I wouldn't be suprised.. I would consider the bible as one of humans best connection to holiness. But I doubt that gods supreme game, is that we have to belive in a materialistic person.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Romana
Romana


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
posted January 14, 2004 06:01 PM

Just wanted to point out I'm not a Christian. My post was merely misinterpreted.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
LordZXZX
LordZXZX


Famous Hero
Overfished
posted January 14, 2004 10:48 PM

What do you all think of the Bible Code, if there is one?
Is there?
____________
...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted January 15, 2004 05:04 AM

WHo really cares if ROmana made a joke or if she was serious.
Yalls like Consis,getting all pissy like were going to be condemd by god for making a joke.
WHoopy doh.
May thunder kill me dead for one joke.
What is reals anyways i was raised a catholic. Went to church & all & I dont even know whats true.
Why does the comment bother you, even if it dont anymore why did it in the first place.
Not like your life is over or your going to hell because of one joke or comment.

They say god knows whats in your heart the truth.
How can you make comments at anybody if he already knows whats in your hearts.

WHO CARES LOL.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Tyler
Tyler


Known Hero
posted January 15, 2004 03:58 PM

I was actually thinking of a debate on facts from the bible ... that could be more interesting i guess...so KHAELO could u post actual small chapters or whatever so we can debate about that
thx
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
BoogieMan
BoogieMan


Famous Hero
The John of Spades
posted January 15, 2004 04:42 PM

Facts? No way! The Bible is so full of nonsense that if we were to interpretate it 'ad literam' we would be stuck here for eternity ... ok, so maybe that's a bad choice of words


____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shadowcaster
Shadowcaster


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
posted January 15, 2004 07:53 PM

Much of that "nonsense" has historical evidence to back it up.
____________
>_>

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
Cold frog
HC SUPPORTER
posted January 15, 2004 09:11 PM
Edited By: Celfious on 15 Jan 2004

Christians dont read this post


Since man says the word of lord on earth is the book,
they say the man written book -proven true in some instances, and false in others- is the only word of Lord on earth. (Besides how God speaks through people and whatnot)

Hence the word of god is man written with some lies, some wrong belifes, and some occourances that really happened.

Well ok I'll go buy a copy today then I'll do the dishes and fight capitolism!

(sorry if i offend :/
my cat licks photograghs so I tried but I cnt figure "exactly" why he dose so)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted January 15, 2004 09:23 PM

Which historical facts are of interest?

A passage recently mentioned in the "Gay People" thread refers to Sodom and Gomorrah.  This story (Genesis 19) is commonly interpreted as being condemnation for homosexuality, but I've seen alternative theories that sexuality had nothing to do with the cities' destruction.  The inhabitants were violating codes of hospitality by attempting to treat guests as prisoners of war (rape as a method of domination), and that is why Yahweh destroyed them.  Given what (little) I know of ancient desert cultures, this theory seems very plausible.  I think it's a moot point insofar as the Hebrew Scriptures' stance on homosexuality goes -- there's a passage in Leviticus that expressly forbids it -- but an interesting look at how the same passage can be used in different ways.  Any other opinions?

A handy Bible site for citations: http://unbound.biola.edu/
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shadowcaster
Shadowcaster


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
posted January 15, 2004 09:47 PM

I draw my personal beliefs that homosexuality is a sin from this scripture, which I think clearly condemns the practice.

Romans 1:24-32

(24)Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

(25)Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

(26)For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(27)And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

(28)And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

(29)Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

(30)Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

(31)Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

(32)Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

____________
>_>

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted January 15, 2004 09:58 PM

Quote:
God also gave them up to uncleanness... God gave them up unto vile affections...God gave them over to a reprobate mind...

Hey!  That quote brings up the same issues of responsibility that my class on Islam talked about!  How funny.

Seriously, the phrases noted above seem to imply that God has agency in the sinners' activities.  The sinners didn't misbehave on account of free will here; God "gave them over" to evilness.  That implies either evilness or at least indifference on the part of God.  How does Christianity resolve that?
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 16, 2004 12:07 AM

I see the bible as a biased, blinkered history of the Jewish race for one, a book of proverbs for another and some parts of it give guidance on life. I do not see it as divine word, nor do I ever intend to do so given it's numerous innacuracies and contradictions combined with the large chunks of it that do not sit with me morally. I don't consider it evil nor do I think it can be used for such a purpose without the person first wishing it to be.

Quote:
The inhabitants were violating codes of hospitality by attempting to treat guests as prisoners of war (rape as a method of domination), and that is why Yahweh destroyed them.


I actually find this quite intruiging though when you consider that the bible is so full of weird laws itself on the subject of rape, varying from forcing women who are raped to marry the rapist to stoning women who do not cry out against the rape. This is just a sample of what bugs me about the "bible is literal truth" theory.

I also quite literally fail to see any logic in the need to follow your life through judging decisions based on a 2000 year old book written for people living in a time and place totally unlike our own. I happen to believe that a god exists, but I do not believe that he would tie us to a book written out of our time and mostly irrelevant to us. I don't believe that god is such a terrifying stickler for rules and precise texts that change not one bit for centuries.

Quote:
Much of that "nonsense" has historical evidence to back it up.


Again interesting. I once asked a christian I was debating with about something similar to this and awaited his historical evidence.

The first example was Jehirco, apparently Archeologists can now say that in it's history it was sacked, and some time "near" the time the bible claims the walls collapsed.

The second was that rough estimates of the Ark's measurements showed that there was enough room for the animals on board based on average size and numbers of species.

Now I'm no scientist, but I did have problems with both of them. Firstly Jehrico, the "near" was something like 50 years either side, ok that's not too bad I guess, BUT the fact that the walls fell does not in any way prove it was due to the actions of the Jews outside it's walls! It could be any number of reasons, both human and natural. Now whilst neither of these prove or otherwise the notion in the bible, it is impossible to prove either way the entire story.

The Ark theory was laughable. Ok, so you have 2 (or more, some animals came in greater numbers) of each type of animal. Well unless god is providing the food, where was it stored? Would this not require room? Surely the meat-eating animals and so on would require sustinance of animal form indicating a need to bring more animals? Then add in who the hell cleans their cages all out for however long they're on board, space for the animals to exercise and so on. Throw in the theory that having animals descending from 1 pair of their species is dangerous anyway and it all seems a VERY tall tale...

There is after all levels of proof and supporting evidence. Science can only say it "might" have happened "sometime" around then. Historical evidence from other sources is patchy also, for example, Egyptian sources refer to two distinct men called Moses, not one and so on. What none of this can do though is prove the faith based parts of the bible. You can't prove Jesus walked on water or was risen from the dead by having evidence that he once existed, it just doesn't work that way.

Sometimes the science-religion link is just too silly for words. Take the spear of Longinus (roman soldier's spear that pierced christ) which allegedly now rests in Austria and has been owned by Charlemegne and Hitler. They did indeed date it, unfortunately only to something like 400 AD for most of the weapon. Now they do admit the central core of the spearhead MAY be older. Now assume it's 0 AD or close by.

What the hell does that prove then? No more than you've found some Roman spear that existed in 0 AD! You can't tell one bit who it belonged to or what it did, even if you could prove it was used in Judea you'd still never prove it pierced christ's side.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's better examples that some will use against these, but the theory I'm talking about is that science and history cannot prove every last word. It's just silly sometimes. I respect the bible for a semi-decent history and think it's a confusing, but sometimes good morality book, but it is to me neither literal truth, nor able to be proven or otherwise. To believe the word of the bible needs faith, not historical "evidence" or scientific proof. You either have faith or not, I don't, but I don't hate the book for it
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shadowcaster
Shadowcaster


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
posted January 16, 2004 12:32 AM

Take this into account, though. The Dead Sea Scrolls, believed to have been dated to around 800 or so B.C., and it contains much of the book of Isaiah, which predates the bith of Christ yet mentions it. The book, I believe, is even quoted in one of the gospels in the verses that Jesus' birth is recorded.

Also, when you say that the Bible is not relevant today, I disagree strongly with you. It is actually surprising, IMO, how relevant it is to this day and age. Sure, the examples aren't up to date, but the values can be applied to modern society. The only difference is that you need an imagination nowadays to outline an example of Biblical values to relate them to today's society.
____________
>_>

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
Cold frog
HC SUPPORTER
posted January 16, 2004 12:50 AM

The conspiracy, -perhaps most blasphemous in the eyes of christians- christians do not read.

Alot of jews were dispersed. Many "lost tribes".
Perhaps they were lost because they didnt feel right about

selecting 5-10 kids, taking them and training/brainwashing them.. The other 4-9 who did not beat the 1 then titled Jesus, were destroyed.

Accounts in the bible say Jesus made people see.
Why didnt those people tell their kids, and there would be ppl now whose parents told them their ancestor was one of them. Nothing like this.

1 problem here is.. If people did witness this, people are able to saw they witnessed it. If people did NOT witness it -due to the fact that it did not occour- then who could say "I saw that it did not happen" no one! The tales were told.

If people did witness these things, who are they to say it was not conspired, plotted, planned out? Perhaps the child Jesus was fooled, perhaps he knew the truth. No offence to the guy, I'm not denying him, I just cannot accept anything as pure truth.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted January 16, 2004 01:05 AM

Quote:
Take this into account, though. The Dead Sea Scrolls, believed to have been dated to around 800 or so B.C., and it contains much of the book of Isaiah, which predates the bith of Christ yet mentions it. The book, I believe, is even quoted in one of the gospels in the verses that Jesus' birth is recorded.



To be fair, a lot of the predictions claimed to be about Jesus are either quite vague or could easily have been self fuffilled. Lets be honest, what actual proof do we really have about what Jesus did in his life outside of the bible from those living at the time? Not a huge deal to be frank. Whilst I'm perhaps being a tad cynical, if say for an example (it won't be this, I'm just using it) Isiah says that Jesus would walk on water, how do we know he did? His followers said he did... we don't have much outside of that to prove it either way. We rely on the word of those who followed him, people who may have vested interest or be so fanatical that they might embroider Jesus' life to fit Jewish prophecy. This is why predictions of Jesus' coming are often so outlandish that it really does little to prove the whole book.

Nor can one or two passages being correct prove the rest of the book. Example, if I wrote a book about WWII and wrote 10 chapters totally accurate as can be, and the next 10 totally innacurate and false, do my first 10 make you believe the second ten must be true? Of course not, nor can say the whole of Isiah prove that the rest is accurate. It is both dangerous and not sensible to assume that on such flimsy arguments as predictions and vague science the entire bible is a correct document.

Quote:
Also, when you say that the Bible is not relevant today, I disagree strongly with you. It is actually surprising, IMO, how relevant it is to this day and age.


I'll provide you with a sample of my reasoning. If I wanted to write down from the bible laws to govern my life I would find numerous contradictions and frankly absurd reasoning such as that over rape. I happen to be intelligent enough not to adopt the more insane of the biblical laws nor use them, for if I did I would have no family alive and would soon be dead myself. Is it not reasonable to assume then that these parts of the bible are irrelevant?

Take the example of creation myth. It's my personal belief that these arose from the need to explain to those in the distant past their existence on earth. With few exceptions, in the ancient world, most would simply not yet understand the concepts that we do know, of the world's age and so on. A myth was created to allow the greater mass of Jewish and Christian people an explanation of their existence and past. We now know that the earth is much older and unlikely to have been built in seven days. This does not invalidate the myth, it had it's uses, but it does make it out of date. People today mostly can understand more about such things. To continue to blindly insist that the world must have been made in 7 days is detrimental to religion because it turns away some that will not accept this.

What relevance is the fairy tale that is the creation or flood to myself that cannot be equally expressed in a simple proverb? Why are they needed when they muddy the waters as to if the bible is truthfull or not? I don't think you understood me, I did not mean to denounce every word or theory of the bible as irrelevant, but I do feel it's format is so out of date and confusing that the message is often lost in the telling.

What truth and morality that there is in the bible is confused with insane laws, false/dubious histories, contradictory evidence and so on. I find the book irrelevant not because I feel it has no message to today's society, but because so much of it is surplus to our modern needs that it stops the message. To me, if a religious guide is to be written it should be clear and easy to follow. I personally don't find this in the bible. I don't see the need for such a guide myself, but I do think that if christianity is to have a religious guidebook if you will that it should be as crystal clear as possible.

I can't see why we should have to relate to our distant religious ancestors in order to have to help people find their own way to god. I can't see why we should have to make sure that the book is not abused because some will inevitably follow the less moral laws. The book should be clear. God would surely not be so set in stone as to make us follow the same book for so long, it would make more sense to have a shortened book, clearer, with the proper christian message ringing out.

Other than loosing the message, I am no christian, therefore I don't believe in the strong restrictions put on people by the book or the church that uses it. I believe more in the direct relationship with the deity to determine your path rather than using a book. I don't really much care for the bible, but I do personally think it is causing (and has causes) as many problems as it solves if not more, and that is the danger which makes it less relevant.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted January 16, 2004 07:11 AM

What Role Did The Bible Play in the Development Of your Country

PrivateHudson,

Of all the countries in the world I believe yours was influenced the most by the bible.

If there was no bible; if it never existed would have happened to your country? We know the Romans would have come to your shores regardless of the bible but from there on I think the bible had a profound influence in shaping your history. Hmm, I wonder.

America was started through a dislike of monarchy. Mind you I didn't say it was built on disliking monarchy just started. Whether that would have been English or some other european country I couldn't say.

The bible did play a significant role in influencing this country's growth as well but I think of all the countries in the world today Brittain experienced the most significant bible-influenced histories of all time. Without the bible what would have happened to your country?

Wouldn't it be logical to at the very least offer some sort of great acknowledgment to the bible for the role its played? I wonder what, exactly, it has done for your country?

Once again would you even exist? Maybe the barbarian tribes were united after the romans but how cohesive would they have remained after they left without the bible?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0785 seconds