Vatican Adds 7 More Sins

[lockmat]

So sin is a man made concept.

What do you mean? Why do you say that?

I think it's kind of like gravity(bad analogy?). Because it happened/disobedience, it exists. It exists b/c we fall short of God's character.

EDIT: why does it keep breaking up my posts? I thought it's supposed to combine them?

[houstonmacbro]

What do you mean? Why do you say that?

I think it's kind of like gravity(bad analogy?). Because it happened/disobedience, it exists. It exists b/c we fall short of God's character.

EDIT: why does it keep breaking up my posts? I thought it's supposed to combine them?

Personal belief here...

...I think that IF there is a God (and this is the same force that I believe exists as gravity, wind, air ... universal laws) that created EVERYTHING ... EVERYWHERE ... before and after time itself...

... (again my thoughts here)

That he is really not concerned with whether or not I (little ole me) stole a candy bar, cheated on my income taxes, or had sex before I was married (with another man at that).

[lockmat]

Personal belief here...

...I think that IF there is a God (and this is the same force that I believe exists as gravity, wind, air ... universal laws) that created EVERYTHING ... EVERYWHERE ... before and after time itself...

I can understand where you're comin from macbro. Carefully consider this. What in this world procreates from nothing?

[houstonmacbro]

I can understand where you're comin from macbro. Carefully consider this. What in this world procreates from nothing?

I am not an atheist. I am not agnostic. I just believe that we have religion and God all wrong. Religion has been used to justify many, many horrible things all done in God's name.

In fact, some of the things claimed in God's name are downright shameful (sinful?).

As for the procreation thing, I guess you're right on that point. But not sure what you're asking by it?

[lockmat]

As for the procreation thing, I guess you're right on that point. But not sure what you're asking by it?

We all must start from the beginning when thinking about this.

I don't know what you think about the beginning of things, but I'm guessing you believe in the big bang or something close to it.

If we see nothing in this world that doesn't procreate without coming from something else before, how can that be true? How can something come from nothing? We don't see that today, why would it all of a sudden just change?

The conclusion we must come to is that something/someone must have created the first person. And some Christians believe that God created the first cell/plant/whatever and let evolution take its course. That's not true, but that's for another time.

So we either believe someone who has the power to create without nothing created us/everything, or nothing created us/nothing. I believe it takes more faith to believe the latter.

We come to the conclusion that God created us/everything. We only see in this world things that obey/look up to/whatever the person/thing that 'created' it, as an example, mother and child. We expect sons and daughters to obey their mother and father.

Also, since God is the creator of us/everything, then he sets the rules. He created us, not us him. We don't make the rules. For an example from the Bible, Romans 9 says, "O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" (It's speaking of salvation, but makes the same point)

---

So God does not allow us to believe whatever we want about this world. I think sometimes peopel think religion/God just wants to make life miserable for us by making up all these rules. But he's not. He promises that if we keep his commandments, we'll have more joy than anything in this world can bring us.

[H-Town Man]

Then the implication was wrong. The people who invaded Rome (in 410 and 455, the Visigoths and Vandals), were just as bound by law as the Romans.

Can you cite a reference that they were just as bound by law? When I said "Rome," I was referring to the Roman Empire in general, not to the specific groups that sacked the city. Better historians than I am have given me the impression that the barbarians were a very "willful" people, and were domesticated by the church.

I've heard of them. I have a copy of the Nag Hammadi library at home and have read the entire thing. They weren't "anti-Christian", and they didn't write their gospels to "falsify" Christianity. Some of them were in competition with other Christian sects.

They were a false sect posing as Christian with contrived gospels that undermined the ideas contained in the real ones. How much more anti-Christian can you get?

All of the people who invaded Rome had those ideas, though. I suggest that they may have held those ideas to a higher position than Romans did. And the Roman Catholic Church's influence had already taken hold (in the Western Empire) by the 5th century.

You are equating Romans with the Catholic Church. Although the Catholic Church became official, it never replaced pagan culture. No doubt there were many Romans who never held chastity in high regard. As to the barbarians, can you cite me something that would suggest that they had such high views of chastity and charity? Anything like what we see in so much medieval writing?

[houstonmacbro]

So we either believe someone who has the power to create without nothing created us/everything, or nothing created us/nothing. I believe it takes more faith to believe the latter.

We come to the conclusion that God created us/everything.

I believe it takes just as much of a leap in logic to believe that SOMEONE created everything, as the scientific explanation (in fact, they are equally suspect). I think there are many process (physical, chemical, quantum) that happen without the intervention or even explanation of man. And when man tries to make sense of it by creating something (akin to a fairy tale) to explain how everything came to be, it is insulting (to my intelligence).

In my estimation, the bible tries to explain many things by using talk that is just as much fairy tale as the best tales of Greek mythology.

(I guess I grew tired of being treated like a child by 'the church' and its outlandish tales).

If religion is going to explain things to me (and this goes for science as well), it is going to do better than fairy tales and leaps of logic.

[H-Town Man]

I am not an atheist. I am not agnostic. I just believe that we have religion and God all wrong. Religion has been used to justify many, many horrible things all done in God's name.

In fact, some of the things claimed in God's name are downright shameful (sinful?).

As for the procreation thing, I guess you're right on that point. But not sure what you're asking by it?

Like I said in response to this early, Jesus actually foretold that people would do terrible things in his name. Of course many people only want to see the bad things when they think of religion and they tune out all the good, but to me it seems like an excuse. Read the Bible. Read what the Church teaches. The present pope's first encyclical was entitled "God is Charity." Doesn't sound very horrible to me.

[Orikal]

That's kind of a shortsighted way of looking at it. Sin is what made us mortal; the fact that we die from the death of cells is true as we are now constituted, but who knows what we were like before?

No, that's the logical and factual way of looking at it.

But I totally understand that logic and factual information aren't necessarily applicable to faith.

So sin is a man made concept.

Bingo.

And the catholic church just solidified this with their recent announcement.

[lockmat]

I believe it takes just as much of a leap in logic to believe that SOMEONE created everything, as the scientific explanation (in fact, they are equally suspect). I think there are many process (physical, chemical, quantum) that happen without the intervention or even explanation of man. And when man tries to make sense of it by creating something (akin to a fairy tale) to explain how everything came to be, it is insulting (to my intelligence).

In my estimation, the bible tries to explain many things by using talk that is just as much fairy tale as the best tales of Greek mythology.

(I guess I grew tired of being treated like a child by 'the church' and its outlandish tales).

If religion is going to explain things to me (and this goes for science as well), it is going to do better than fairy tales and leaps of logic.

One thing we must all come to grips with in this post modern world where everything is relative, is that there is truth. Some things must be right and some things must be wrong. Something cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

In thinking about these things, we must conclude that we are either right or wrong. There is zero wiggle room.

Bingo.

And the catholic church just solidified this with their recent announcement.

I wouldn't assume that what the Catholic church says is the standard or what the Bible says. Like anything, we need to find out for ourself, and Bibles are always readily available in our free country.

[H-Town Man]

IIn my estimation, the bible tries to explain many things by using talk that is just as much fairy tale as the best tales of Greek mythology.

That's funny, G.K. Chesterton once actually wrote a passage about fairy tales and how they so often embody truths that can't be expressed in any other way. Similar to what Jung and Campbell said about myth.

If you think books like Genesis are just simple-minded stories, you might check out a book by Leon Kass entitled The Beginning of Wisdom. Read a few pages and you'll start to realize there is a lot more going on in Genesis than just a fairy tale.

[houstonmacbro]

One thing we must all come to grips with in this post modern world where everything is relative, is that there is truth. Some things must be right and some things must be wrong. Something cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

In thinking about these things, we must conclude that we are either right or wrong. There is zero wiggle room.

Yes, but it's us who is deciding what is right or wrong. We are.

When is the last time the true God came down and spoke out loud. In factual, plain, unequivocable, and irrefutable terms to the entire world?

When He spoke and the whole world saw it? God does not speak to us, except in thousand year old texts ... written by man and pieced together over hundreds of years and most times in the 2nd or 3rd person.

I believe that we have fashion 'God' into what we want Him to be.

[H-Town Man]

No, that's the logical and factual way of looking at it.

But I totally understand that logic and factual information aren't necessarily applicable to faith.

Bingo.

And the catholic church just solidified this with their recent announcement.

Neither are logic and factual information inconsistent with it. It's how we interpret these "facts." David Hume showed long ago the fallacy of believing that the world is bound by any scientific law. When science asserts that nothing has ever happened or can ever happen that is not in agreement with what it has observed in its experiments, it has made a religion (and a faith) out of itself.

The Catholic Church did not invent any sins in its recent announcement. They just applied old teachings to new situations.

[memebag]

Can you cite a reference that they were just as bound by law? When I said "Rome," I was referring to the Roman Empire in general, not to the specific groups that sacked the city. Better historians than I am have given me the impression that the barbarians were a very "willful" people, and were domesticated by the church.

You can start here: Celtic Law

Who are these "better historians"?

They were a false sect posing as Christian with contrived gospels that undermined the ideas contained in the real ones. How much more anti-Christian can you get?

They were no more "false" or "true" than the sects that ended up putting their gospels in the canon.

You are equating Romans with the Catholic Church. Although the Catholic Church became official, it never replaced pagan culture. No doubt there were many Romans who never held chastity in high regard. As to the barbarians, can you cite me something that would suggest that they had such high views of chastity and charity? Anything like what we see in so much medieval writing?

If the Catholic church never replaced pagan culture, why are medieval writings an example of Catholic influence and not pagan?

I do equate Romans with the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic Church was created by a Roman emperor and replaced the Roman state religion.

That's kind of a shortsighted way of looking at it. Sin is what made us mortal; the fact that we die from the death of cells is true as we are now constituted, but who knows what we were like before?

<raises hand>

I do.

[H-Town Man]

I believe that we have fashion 'God' into what we want Him to be.

If we did that, then why does He demand so many duties of us? Why is it so difficult to live a life of faith? Why are we taught to avoid so many of the world's pleasures?

Seriously, of all the arguments against religion, this one is the weakest.

[musicman]

In my estimation, the bible tries to explain many things by using talk that is just as much fairy tale as the best tales of Greek mythology.

(I guess I grew tired of being treated like a child by 'the church' and its outlandish tales).

If religion is going to explain things to me (and this goes for science as well), it is going to do better than fairy tales and leaps of logic.

go study truth vs fact sometime.

[Orikal]

I wouldn't assume that what the Catholic church says is the standard or what the Bible says. Like anything, we need to find out for ourself, and Bibles are always readily available in our free country.

If you are a committed catholic, then yes, what the church says is considered doctrine and is to be followed. It is the standard for catholicism.

[H-Town Man]

You can start here: Celtic Law

Who are these "better historians"?

My professor, who taught Western Civilization at the University of Chicago for 47 years, suggested that the church was largely responsible for "domesticating" (his term) the invaders (he was non-Christian, so I don't think there was bias involved). I think the point about the barbarians' willfulness was first made by Guizot in his History of Civilization in Europe.

They were no more "false" or "true" than the sects that ended up putting their gospels in the canon.

Yeah, their texts were just written over a century after the original ones. I'm sure they couldn't have been motivated by the desire to undermine a fast-growing religion.

If the Catholic church never replaced pagan culture, why are medieval writings an example of Catholic influence and not pagan?

It never replaced it in the Roman Empire. Check out a book called Augustine of Hippo by Peter Brown - he discusses how even in Augustine's time, there was still a strong pagan culture that tried to revive itself as the main culture of the empire. It was against them that Augustine wrote his City of God Against The Pagans.

I do equate Romans with the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic Church was created by a Roman emperor and replaced the Roman state religion.

Just because it became the official state religion does not mean that the Romans should be equated with the Catholic Church. That is very naive. Augustine, writing after Catholicism became the official religion, was indifferent to the possibility of the downfall of the Roman state because it was so based on secular values and culture. Sure seems funny that a Catholic bishop would be indifferent to the fortunes of Rome if Rome was equatable to the Catholic church, doesn't it?

<raises hand>

I do.

Unless you have something to show that our scientific laws are binding of all things throughout history, then no, you don't. And as Hume made clear, nobody can show that.

Well folks, it's been fun. I'm sure there will be many intelligent replies to my statements and arguments, and I wish I could be here to answer them, but spring break is upon me and I am going home. Enjoy your discussion.

[Orikal]

David Hume showed long ago the fallacy of believing that the world is bound by any scientific law. When science asserts that nothing has ever happened or can ever happen that is not in agreement with what it has observed in its experiments, it has made a religion (and a faith) out of itself.

The Catholic Church did not invent any sins in its recent announcement. They just applied old teachings to new situations.

Main Entry: sci

[lockmat]

If you are a committed catholic, then yes, what the church says is considered doctrine and is to be followed. It is the standard for catholicism.

Of course, it's truth to "you"(not you;), but truth is not relative. But we've already had that thread.

[TheNiche]

I don't have to have faith that the world is round. This have been proven time and time again by the scientic method. Until a better understanding of this fact appears, it is reasonable to assume this is truth. There are no testable assertions in the bible, which is where faith comes in, which is the definition of a religion. Your correlation falls flat.

I appreciate your line of reasoning, but on what basis do you consider it "reasonable" to assume that the Earth is approximatley spherical? There are any number of unlikely yet plausible circumstances in which it may not be approximately spherical, for instance if it became un-spherical since the last time you checked, or if it were distorted in shape by a black hole, or perhaps if alien bombardment had blown the opposite side of the planet to shreds and the effects won't be felt here for another 30 seconds.

Is the only criteria for "reasonableness" pragmatism? It would seem as such to me. And to assume that the Earth is approximately spherical in any given moment requires a degree of faith. If you do not accept that, consider that there are circumstances in which it may be pragmatic for an individual or group to accept or perpetuate a categorical lie. Is acceptance of fiction as fact the act of a scientific mind. I would think that to be plausible. Even religion itself has been utilized in the past as a means of accomplishing a pragmatic goal, whether it be to wipe out a foreign country (subsequently raping and pilaging those people as well) or even as a means by which consolation might be offered to the desperately poor so as to quell the likelihood of civil unrest.

Of course, I'm talking in extremes only to derive a point. Faith cannot be granted to science, not even on the basis of that it has a good track record in accurately measuring how it is that you perceive the world. Faith cannot be granted to your perceptions. Nor can faith be granted to god(s).

The most difficult thing that many people seem to face is that they can neither completely or accurately manipulate, control, understand, or even comprehend the most infinitecimal extent of their perceived reality. Religion is a crutch, one of many. So is science. So is every aspect of pre-conditioned cognition. The strictest test of a philosopher (at least IMO) is that they are capable of accepting that they know nothing, are nothing (screw Descartes, he was wrong), and that there is no underlying meaning to anything about which one can be certain.

My thesis: the ideal philosopher is faithless. There are no philosophers. Only religious zealots of various sort.

[Orikal]

I appreciate your line of reasoning, but on what basis do you consider it "reasonable" to assume that the Earth is approximatley spherical? There are any number of unlikely yet plausible circumstances in which it may not be approximately spherical, for instance if it became un-spherical since the last time you checked, or if it were distorted in shape by a black hole, or perhaps if alien bombardment had blown the opposite side of the planet to shreds and the effects won't be felt here for another 30 seconds.

Is the only criteria for "reasonableness" pragmatism? It would seem as such to me. And to assume that the Earth is approximately spherical in any given moment requires a degree of faith. If you do not accept that, consider that there are circumstances in which it may be pragmatic for an individual or group to accept or perpetuate a categorical lie. Is acceptance of fiction as fact the act of a scientific mind. I would think that to be plausible. Even religion itself has been utilized in the past as a means of accomplishing a pragmatic goal, whether it be to wipe out a foreign country (subsequently raping and pilaging those people as well) or even as a means by which consolation might be offered to the desperately poor so as to quell the likelihood of civil unrest.

Of course, I'm talking in extremes only to derive a point. Faith cannot be granted to science, not even on the basis of that it has a good track record in accurately measuring how it is that you perceive the world. Faith cannot be granted to your perceptions. Nor can faith be granted to god(s).

I agree with most of this. However, to keep this in context, I see this line of reasoning falling apart when you apply the literal definition of faith (the firm belief in something for which there is no proof). It does not require faith, in the most literal sense, for me to know the Earth is round. It may require assumption; since the Earth was verified to be round 10 minutes ago, I can reasonably assume it will be verified to be round 10 minutes from now. If one were so inclined, one could find proof that yes, the Earth is currently round (updated satellite images, standing on a tall building to see the curvature of the Earth, etc.). This requires not one iota of faith.

Now we can go off on all sorts of tangents (perhaps the government is lying, is what we're seeing really what others are seeing, do we even really exist, ad nauseum), but this is outside the realm of my post, and best left to conspiracy theorists and fans of psychotropic substances.

[BryanS]

So God does not allow us to believe whatever we want about this world. I think sometimes peopel think religion/God just wants to make life miserable for us by making up all these rules. But he's not. He promises that if we keep his commandments, we'll have more joy than anything in this world can bring us.

...and its this kind of thinking that has been the cause of holy wars, over the centuries, that has resulted in more death and destruction in this world than could ever had been imagined. While there is no official known number, I've seen anywhere from 1 to 9 million deaths. 9 to 11 crusades, spanning almost 200 years. Your God (and your beliefs) vs. my God (and my beliefs). Think how many people have been killed, maimed (and in come cases been driven to suicide) in the name of religion. It will never end.

...I have real trouble thinking, that in a universe as large as ours, that we are the only living organisms in the entire universe. Yet, we are told, that Our Savior, the son of God, is a white (or a black) male, approximately 6'2", waist-length brown hair, wears sandals, and walks on water. We have molded God into our own anthropomorphic image. How narrow-minded of us. Statistically, we're not alone.

...If the Christian God/Jesus... is all knowing, and all caring, and all powerful... then how come we have children

[lockmat]

...and its this kind of thinking that has been the cause of holy wars, over the centuries, that has resulted in more death and destruction in this world than could ever had been imagined. While there is no official known number, I've seen anywhere from 1 to 9 million deaths. 9 to 11 crusades, spanning almost 200 years. Your God (and your beliefs) vs. my God (and my beliefs). Think how many people have been killed, maimed (and in come cases been driven to suicide) in the name of religion. It will never end.

No, things like that happen because people don't interpret the Bible properly, therefore living it out incorrectly. Me or nobody I know who hold true to similar biblical doctrines have any hostility towards anyone. It's not a matter of my god vs. your god. It's a matter of what is true. I understand why people do it, but it's not fair to judge one Christian/religous individual who lives now against what people with bad doctrine did many years before, anymore than it is fair to judge whites for what their distant relatives did to blacks during the slave years.

Everyone always avoids truth, and instead believe in what they want or feel like. Truth is what matters yet nobody cares about it b/c what they believe makes them feel better. We couldn't have our discussions on the Houston economy or any of the other things we talk about was it not for truth. But for some reason, when it comes to spiritual things, truth is thrown out the window.

...I have real trouble thinking, that in a universe as large as ours, that we are the only living organisms in the entire universe. Yet, we are told, that Our Savior, the son of God, is a white (or a black) male, approximately 6'2", waist-length brown hair, wears sandals, and walks on water. We have molded God into our own anthropomorphic image. How narrow-minded of us. Statistically, we're not alone.

You can't really judge what "Christians" tell by baseing it off 'media christianity' or 'surface' Christianity that most 'Christians' live. But Jesus, when a man, looked like a Jew. He was Jewish. So he probably had lighter skin with brown or black hair, just like most Jews.

[lockmat]

...If the Christian God/Jesus... is all knowing, and all caring, and all powerful... then how come we have children's hospitals full of little innocent kids, dying of cancer? What did they do to deserve that? If they "believe" ... they go to heaven. But that's like hitting me over the head with a baseball bat and then paying me $50. Yea, it hurt - but at least I got a reward, right? That is crazy. If you really loved me, you wouldn't have hit me in the first place.

We have all this b/c of sin, the fall. Before the fall, everything was perfect. The thing is, we expect God to do good things. Well, he does. He offers salvation. We as humans have disobeyed our creator. The wage for that is eternal death. That's what we've earned for ourself, death. He had nothing to do with that. He does not make anyone sin. But because he loved us, he died for us. How many of us would sacrifice our lives for people who constantly do us wrong? None of us. We were enemies of him, yet he still died and rose, and gave opportunity for salvation.

[TheNiche]

It does not require faith, in the most literal sense, for me to know the Earth is round.

Sure it does. You must foremostly have faith in your existence. Thereafter, you must have faith in your mulit-sensory perception of that existence. Beyond that, I might question the shape of space and time; perhaps the earth's surface is nothing but the interior wall of a hollow sphere being subjected to a kind of spatial refaction so as that the universe as we see it in fact exists towards the core of the sphere, its volume in fact inversely proportional to that which we believe it to be as a result of our observations. I could sit around all day coming up with unlikely variations on the theme of a warped universe. ...but that they'd all be unlikely doesn't detract from the plausibility of such hypotheses.

Proof that the Earth is approximately spherical (even in hindsight) does not exist. It exists only as a matter of faith. This is true of all things perceived.

[memebag]

My professor, who taught Western Civilization at the University of Chicago for 47 years, suggested that the church was largely responsible for "domesticating" (his term) the invaders (he was non-Christian, so I don't think there was bias involved). I think the point about the barbarians' willfulness was first made by Guizot in his History of Civilization in Europe.

Wow. You're basing your argument on a book published in 1828? Not only has a lot been learned about European history since then, we've learned quite a bit about bias in previously accepted European history introduced by ... the Catholic Church.

Yeah, their texts were just written over a century after the original ones.

You've got some proof of that? Surely you're aware of the dispute about the date of the Gospel of Thomas. It may pre-date any other gospel.

I'm sure they couldn't have been motivated by the desire to undermine a fast-growing religion.

The Gnostics were a fast growing religion. Many of them considered themselves Christians. The distinction between gnostics and what became Roman Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are not as clear cut as you seem to think. Valentinius was a candidate for bishop in the Roman church.

It never replaced it in the Roman Empire. Check out a book called Augustine of Hippo by Peter Brown - he discusses how even in Augustine's time, there was still a strong pagan culture that tried to revive itself as the main culture of the empire. It was against them that Augustine wrote his City of God Against The Pagans.

That doesn't answer my question. If the Catholic church never replaced pagan culture, why are medieval writings an example of Catholic influence and not pagan?

Just because it became the official state religion does not mean that the Romans should be equated with the Catholic Church. That is very naive. Augustine, writing after Catholicism became the official religion, was indifferent to the possibility of the downfall of the Roman state because it was so based on secular values and culture. Sure seems funny that a Catholic bishop would be indifferent to the fortunes of Rome if Rome was equatable to the Catholic church, doesn't it?

Rome evolved into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. That's why the day of rest is observed on Sunday. That's why their hierarchies mirror Roman government. That's where all the latin came from. It doesn't seem funny to me, since Augustine clearly saw the Roman religion replacing the Roman state.

Unless you have something to show that our scientific laws are binding of all things throughout history, then no, you don't. And as Hume made clear, nobody can show that.

He did no such thing. Are you saying that fossils are a trick being played upon us?

[H-Town Man]

Main Entry: sci

[HtownWxBoy]

My boyfriend and I watched this very interesting documentary the other night which basically showed how the Christian religion is totally and completely based on Pagan beliefs... it was kind of scary. The "son of God" apparently represents the actual Sun which Pagans saw as bringing hope and light and life to the earth every day... and it showed how the whole "born of a virgin" story has been done through different religions over thousands and thousands and thousands of years. It went on and on showing links between Christianity and Paganism.... was very interesting.

[TheNiche]

My boyfriend and I watched this very interesting documentary the other night which basically showed how the Christian religion is totally and completely based on Pagan beliefs... it was kind of scary. The "son of God" apparently represents the actual Sun which Pagans saw as bringing hope and light and life to the earth every day... and it showed how the whole "born of a virgin" story has been done through different religions over thousands and thousands and thousands of years. It went on and on showing links between Christianity and Paganism.... was very interesting.

That'd make sense. Heredity was extremely important in many ancient (and some modern-day) cultures, which is why virgins were prized. They offer supposed proof of not having had a foreign seed planted in the womb, so to speak.

...the problem is...penetration is not necessary for pregnancy to take. Its uncommon but well documented today that young couples fooling around end up inducing a pregnancy without breaking the hymen. That was not understood back in the day. Its certainly understandable that a pregnant virgin might be interpreted as some kind of miracle and that the child, viewed by society as somehow special throughout his childhood, would take on megalomaniacal tendencies that might lend themselves to cult formation and leadership.