| Author | Message | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 1368 Registered: 12-2007 |
Freeatlast, EXACTLY ! | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 589 Registered: 7-2005 |
No, I didn't use the term "adventist" in the larger sense. Neither I'm encouraging anyone to come back into the SDA church. Unfortunately I must rush to work so I'm not able to present a positive case for what I'm saying. I'll come back later and explain in details my aim. Please be patient with me... Gabriel | ||
| Paulcross Registered user Username: Paulcross Post Number: 191 Registered: 4-2005 |
My aim in choosing a term to identify myself is to communicate who I am with as little confussion as possible and with as much clarity as possible. Therefore I am NOT an Adventist. But I AM a sinner saved by God's Grace. I "have gained access by faith into this grace in which I now stand". Romans 5:2 There is nothing about using the term Adventist to identifying who I am that will not give rise to serious misunderstandings. For example it could convey that I am claiming salvation AS an Adventist by God's Grace with no incongruities involved. This would imply that I believed that the theological positions of Adventism were truly, based on sola scriptura - sola fide - sola gratia, God Honoring and without guile. For me? I would not want to support something I don't believe. Paul Cross | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 590 Registered: 7-2005 |
@Paul And describing yourself as a sinner saved by God's grace has the same potential to misunderstanding. Adventists will like to paint you as somebody who claims God's grace while sustaining willfully a life of sin. But this caricature doesn't make you renounce to define yourself as "sinner", does it? I deliberately put the two definitions together and I'll use them together in order to remove the kind of misunderstandings that may arise. Because while I saw myself as a sinner, I'm somebody who considers sin and being a sinner something which I need to be delivered daily. My sanctification is far from complete, and I look forward to the day when this body of sin will no longer be part of what I am, to the resurrection. While sin is still part of my current life, the power of it over me was broken and I'm constantly fighting it through the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the flesh. Same with still being an adventist. The parallelism between "sinner saved by grace" to "adventist saved by grace" makes "adventist" parallel the "sinner". As in case of sin and being a sinner, I see myself as adventist in the sense that being "adventist" is something I need to be delivered through sanctification. In one sense I'm no longer sinner, but saint, through imputation and also through the spiritual resurrection of the new birth. In this sense I'm no longer adventist, I was rescued from adventism and as I cannot go back to a state of spiritual death, I can no longer go back into adventistm. My new identity is "former sinner", "former adventist". But because my sanctification is incomplete, I'm still adventist, and against this former identity I have to fight because while something decisively happened in my life that put a wall of partition between me and my past, the past still influences me through the sin that dwells in me. This sin had developed in an adventist background and for me as a former adventist, I had to fight with the particular shapes my inward sin took. It's like a tree planted in a certain kind of habitat. Same trees planted in different habitats, while retaining their identities intact, also have significant differences between them. We all share from Adam the same sinful nature, but the way in which this nature manifests itself took the form of the religious background in which we were raised before being saved. A muslim, a Jew, a Jehova's Witness and Mormon, even an adventist, will have to battle with their internal sin in different ways. For example, muslims will have to fight their anti-trinitarian monotheism, while adventist will have to fight their anti-trinitarian tritheism. While adventist will have to battle with issues related to sanctifying saturday, muslims will have issues related to worshiping on Friday. And beside the things that are more visible, there are other things that are not as evident, with which a former adventist had to fight. Many who are posting on this forum realized, as time goes on, that they had more cleanup to do regarding their adventist mindset that they previously acknowledged. More and more we came to realize that the deception involved in adventism extends beyond what we thought when we break ties with adventism. Perhaps the most important discovery former adventists made was that adventism is not trinitarian. This discovery came later in time. When we left, we didn't thought that we need to clean our minds of the tritheism we imbued from adventism. The idea of seeing myself in some sense an "adventist saved by grace" (maybe "recovering adventist" will help) came to my mind when I listened to a lecture of Kenneth Samples about St. Augustine. St. Augustine, before becoming bishop of Hippo, was a manichean for 9 or 10 years. Manicheism was a non-christian religion which posed as Christian, a restorationist movement (similar to adventism, JWs, LDS), claiming that the apostles perverted Jesus' message and Mani, who called himself Paracletos (embodying the Holy Spirit), was the one who restored it. It was a pseudo-Christian sect, in other words a cult. It has a dualistic view of universe with a good god and a wicked god, also it saw everything as physical denying the existence of anything immaterial. No spirit. After his conversion to Christianity, Augustine became a powerful opponent of manicheism. He used his internal knowledge about manicheism to put this false system of belief down. Still, despite his opposition and dedication of refuting his former belief system, Augustine still retain some parts of his manicheistic thinking, evident in his writings. What made me all ears was when Kenneth shared the experience he learned with his mentor, Walter Martin. Kenneth said that Martin came to acknowledge how hard is for somebody who was involved with JWs and LDS (mormon) to have accurate views of God. According to their observations during the years, former mormons or former witnesses have still skewed views of God, a heritage of their former identity that still defines them. Not at the core, but it's still a part of their life. It seems that if even St. Augustine has not been able to get rid entirely of his manichean baggage, we, as former adventists, should be realistic enough in order to admit that we, while not being at the core adventists, still have enough baggage from this system that still defines us, even unconsciously. And also I think that if we want to make progress in cleaning ourselves from this baggage is important to recognize that we will never escape 100% from this baggage. Remember that we believed in perfection, that we need to be perfect, and we expected to be perfect, and had a lot of problems due to this unrealistic expectations. Only when we ceased to have these unrealistic expectations, we had been liberated toward making progress in our daily fight with sin and temptations. Same regarding our adventist heritage. When we will renounce of unrealistic expectations, when we will recognize that until the last breath of our earthly life we will be in some measure adventists, we will be able to make progress toward cleaning ourselves of this baggage. Why entertain unrealistic views about ourselves? It will only make us blind toward areas from our spiritual life where our skewed anti-Christian adventist views affect us negatively, suffering a lot because of things we are unwilling to admit. That's why I propose to see ourselves BOTH as former adventists and also as adventists. We are former adventists because the adventist identity does no longer define us at the core, as sin no longer defines us at the core, and also adventists in the sense that our adventist identity still influences us and will influence us until our final breath. This will make us aware of areas that unfortunately cause us a lot of trouble, unbelief, sorrow, depression, consequences that will plague us longer that it should be, since we are in denial. The quickest and shortest way toward healing is to come to a more realistic view of ourselves and to realistic expectations. I don't have anything against former adventists refusing to use the label "adventist" in regard to themselves. It may create confusion, sure. But I don't see any justification for denying to ourselves (if not to others) the fact that we share partially in our former identity. I wrote what I wrote in order to help people, not to confuse them. Maybe my words will help people struggling with things that they thought were left behind when they renounced adventism and embraced Christianity. Since it seems I caused trouble, I'm shutting my mouth. I don't want to shatter anybody's faith. Gabriel | ||
| Paulcross Registered user Username: Paulcross Post Number: 192 Registered: 4-2005 |
Gabriel, I hardly think we have arrived at "mouth shutting time". This is dialogue for the purpose of unfolding the nuances of our understanding. You just said, "I don't have anything against former adventists refusing to use the label "adventist" in regard to themselves. It may create confusion, sure." Thanks for expanding your statement, I too wish to avoid confusion - but alas my skills in communication often fail - so we benefit from hearing each other. You also said, "But I don't see any justification for denying to ourselves (if not to others) the fact that we share partially in our former identity." I heartily agree with you observation that we must not bury our heads in the sand and deny the impacts the Adventist belief system has had upon us, that would be disasterous and hamper our growth under the Spirit. It was in the will of God that I (we) should pass through these fires and if we deny our stories in will only hinder the healing. I believe that the discussions here provide that opportunity to pull our heads out of the sand and give them a shake to dispell the grains of error that cling to us and cause spiritual irritation. Paul Cross | ||
| Grace1958_f Registered user Username: Grace1958_f Post Number: 33 Registered: 3-2011 |
My husband refers to himself as: fka (formerly known as) Seventh Day Adentist (SDA) kna (now known as) born again believer who is a follower of Jesus Christ. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12542 Registered: 12-2003  |
I understand what you are saying, Gabriel. While in general I don't want to identify myself as an "Adventist", even one "saved by grace"—in fact, in this part of the world, they also make that claim—I do embrace the label "former Adventist" precisely because I do believe my previous enmeshment with Adventism shaped me profoundly—and also necessitated my re-education and repentance from more deep heresy than I originally realized. I totally agree with what I think you are saying: when we try to "just move on" and refuse to acknowledge our Adventist roots, generally that denial signals a level of refusal to admit how "wrong" we were. In my experience, the people who just want to melt into the Christian network without ever acknowledging their Adventism are the ones who don't admit and don't know how distorted Adventism is. Those who freely admit they were Adventists in the past are usually the ones who have most thoroughly processed their Adventism and recognize how wrong it was. They no longer protect their identities by denying their roots. Instead, they can freely say they were Adventists but have been saved by grace from deep deception. Saying we are "former Adventists" clearly marks us as no longer endorsing the cult, but it also states that we haven't just fallen away without processing what we were. Colleen | ||
| Gregkleinig Registered user Username: Gregkleinig Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2010 |
G'day all. As an xiter (not fully escaped yet) I can't thank you all enough for this forum. I read much and post little. I literally have no one in my part of the world to talk toabout these things so you guys are very important to me. As little as 6 months ago I was unaware of FAF and thought I had the pitfalls of sdaism worked out pretty well. I can't believe how much more I have learnt in such a short time. Thankyou all. What is tritheism? Greg | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 591 Registered: 7-2005 |
All right, finally I found some time for further clarification. I realized that I need to be more specific than I was until this point. The comments were close enough, still missed the target. Let's start with an illustration. When you are wearing sunglasses, you see the entire world in a color given by the glass. If you wear the glasses a long time, at some point you forge that the glasses are on your nose because you are looking through them to the world. Only when you take your glasses off and look at them, you can see "Oh, the glass is red, I see the world with much red color than it truly has." When we are conscious of these glasses and make a deliberate and conscious effort to be aware of our glasses, we are able to move toward a more objective view. The same with the theological glasses. When we read the Bible, we always look at the text through certain hermeneutical glasses. There is no objective, 100% accurate study of the Bible. We always {bring} something with us when we study the Bible: ourselves. We are not passive observers, we are part of the landscape. We read words in the Bible, but we have already used these words many times in the past and have a meaning for them given by our culture, given by our previous interactions with parents, siblings, friends, neighbors, community, and the media. We not only {take} something from the Bible, we also bring something. The hard thing is to take your own glasses off and look at them. It takes constant work, and a deliberate goal toward refining your understanding. It takes willingness to listen to others who wear different theological and hermeneutical (interpretative) glasses in order to got a more objective picture of the Bible and of ourselves also. It's easy to see the past generations reading into the Bible. For example, the medieval paintings of David and other biblical warrior figures show them in medieval clothes, medieval swords, medieval shields, etc. In the medieval world, nothing changed, things looked pretty much the same for centuries. When they read the Bible, they assumed, unconsciously, nobody even doubted, that things were the same in the past: David looked as a medieval knight. This kind of glasses inherited from adventists is what worries me. It worries me more because I see few former adventists making a deliberate effort in trying to remove these glasses. For example, adventists are educated to see themselves as having "the truth" and the others being in apostasy. This means that a child of Babylon didn't have truly something to tell about truth: if there was something truth in his ideas, adventists already have it. Consequently, adventists, as many formers know from experience, don't truly listen to what formers tell them: they look for holes in the armor, they look for reasons to dismiss what former adventists say. Now, turning the mirror toward me, as a former adventist, what can I say about my current attitude and position toward people who disagree with me theologically. Am I truly listening to them, or am I looking for holes in their theological armor that will enable me to shoot them down in debate? What about my current conversations with adventists, am I truly listening to what they really say, or am I assuming that I already know what they say and don't pay too much attention? The biggest problem of the adventist mindset was the idea of possessing the "truth", and having nothing significantly to learn and correct in their understanding. The question is if today I am indeed more open to correction even if this corrections comes from adventists. For example, the usual former adventist take on Matthew 5:18,19 is to affirm a sharp distinction between the "law" (greek nomos) and the "commandments" (greek entole) based precisely on the fact that entole refers to NT commands while nomos to the OT mosaic law, OT commands. But during conversations with adventists I had to amend my views on this subject, because Matthew uses entole in the setting of rich your ruler with direct references to commandments from the decalogue, OT commandments (Matthew 19:17,18). I realized that the former adventist view about this needs correction and thanked my adventist friends for helping me see a blind spot. There are other blind spots that during the time I came to see, this is just one when I saw the importance of having a proper attitude in conversation, true humility and a willingness to be corrected, even by people with whom we strongly disagree, our former brothers. To be continued. Gabriel | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 592 Registered: 7-2005 |
@Greg Because adventists thought that the church apostatized during the middle ages and the reformation was more like a partial incomplete restoration, they considered the doctrine of Trinity as confessed in the creeds a sign of apostasy. They interacted, though, with a protestant trinitarian creedal definition, but by putting themselves in opposition to it, ending with two gods, Father and Son, the former being ontologically greater than the other, while the Spirit was impersonal power, another attribute of the Father. When they finally recognized the personality of the Holy Spirit and the equality between Son and Father, they retained their previous view of seeing Father and Son as two beings, only adding the Holy Spirit as a third being. Their initial bi-theism (two divine beings) became tri-theism (three divine beings). Trinity means one being, three persons. Gabriel | ||
| Grace1958_f Registered user Username: Grace1958_f Post Number: 37 Registered: 3-2011 |
Jackob,in re: to your post #591, I am a bit confused about what you stated as follows: *For example, the usual former adventist take on Matthew 5:18,19 is to affirm a sharp distinction between the "law" (greek nomos) and the "commandments" (greek entole) based precisely on the fact that entole refers to NT commands while nomos to the OT mosaic law, OT commands. But during conversations with adventists I had to amend my views on this subject, because Matthew uses entole in the setting of rich your ruler with direct references to commandments from the decalogue, OT commandments (Matthew 19:17,18). I realized that the former adventist view about this needs correction and thanked my adventist friends for helping me see a blind spot.* Could you explain to me your interpretation of Matt 5:17-19. Thanks. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1187 Registered: 7-2005  |
Gabriel, thank you for expressing what I have observed - that we former Adventists still retain a characteristic of Adventism - that we *must* have correct doctrine and those who don't agree with our doctrine are the enemy. I deal with this a lot in myself, because my change of doctrine has made me so stubborn and condescending that I can't even discuss the Bible with my sweet, kind Adventist husband. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12547 Registered: 12-2003 |
Grace1958--the distinction between "nomos" and "entole" you mention is true only in John's writings. It is also often true throughout the NT, but some authors do use "entole" in reference to law...not wrongly, but not exclusively. John is the one author who consistently throughout all five of his books (John, 1, 2, 3 John, and Revelation) uses "entole" whenever he means "teachings" of Jesus. This is absolutely consistent throughout the writings of John. John is the one author whose "commandment" comments are most used as SDA proof-texts for keeping the Sabbath. They cite Revelation 14:12 and many others...yet every single time John uses "commandments", he does NOT refer to "law". When John refers to "law", he uses "nomos" or sometimes "Torah". The fact that Matthew sometimes uses "entole" to mean "law" does not negate John's use of the word. John wrote what He wrote...and Adventists use John to "prove" Sabbath-keeping. This argument is completely unsupportable. One must read the verses IN CONTEXT...and what is true for Matthew is not necessarily true for John. We can't argue Matthew's use of "entole" to make a case for the way John used it. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 594 Registered: 7-2005 |
@Grace
I don't come to a definite conclusion and I hold to the current view tentatively. In short, my previous view was Law (nomos)= Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) and commandments (entole)= New Covenant teachings of Jesus. My current view: Law = Torah (5 books of Moses), Prophets = prophetic books of Old Testament and, when used together, as here, Law + Prophets = Old Testament (entire OT canon) I came to this conclusion because Matthew writes for the Jews, and contextually Law and the Prophets, sometimes Law, Prophets and Writings (the last being the poetic books), known in hebrew as Torah, Nebi'im and Kettubim, were the way in which Jews referred to their Scriptures, the entire Old Testament canon. In this context, Law was Torah, the books of Mose, including the Old Covenant, but containing something more. Matthew points specifically and repeatedly to Jesus as fulfilling prophecies, there are many explicit affirmations, no need to repeat them here. Law AND Prophets appear together in Matthew in another place:
Notice that here not only the Prophets prophesied but also the Law prophesied. This endorses the view that Law means Torah, the revelation of God through Moses. Also it's useful to notice that the Old Testament revelation had an end in time: John the Baptist. With him, the era of OT revelation ends, leaving room for the new revelation (of fulfillment of what was promised in shadows in the OT).
Law and Prophets appear again together bearing witness, proof that they refer to the OT revelation, the books of the Old Testament canon.
Here we have also the Writings, the poetic books, the Psalms, Torah Nebi'im and Kettubim. All this OT revelation testified about Jesus and must be fulfilled, paralleling Matthew 5:17. Even verse 18 from Matthew 5, the closer context endorses the view that Torah refers to Scripture, to revelation
Iota, dot, these are letters, parts of words, parts of written revelation. When Jesus says that he didn't came to abolish the Law or the Prophets he basically says that no part of God's written revelation is going to be discarded, not even a dot or a iota, all written revelation is going to stand, his mission will not contradict or destroy anything that God revealed previously. Regarding the commandments mentioned in verse 19, I see no indication in the text that refer to something else than the same revelation. It starts with "therefore" showing that what comes is the conclusion, the logical outcome of what was affirmed previously: nobody can't trump the Old Testament revelation without serious consequences. In this context, commandments (entole) = Law and Prophets= Old Testament canon. As I said, I'm holding this position tentatively, leaving room for change or improvement. Until this moment I didn't encounter a better explanation that will fit better with the text, but I'm willing to pursue different paths if evidences will require. Gabriel | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 595 Registered: 7-2005 |
@Colleen
Unfortunately this distinction between Matthew's use and John's use was not explicitly made clear to me until I had to use the linguistic argument with adventists on the battlefield. The problem was aggravated because not only this distinction was lacking, but I formed my views as a newbie ex-adventist by listening to a well-known former adventist pastor lecture on Matthew 5 where he used exactly this distinction between entole and nomos, preparing me for a very painful interaction with adventists. I had to recognize that my views didn't match the available data. Gabriel | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 596 Registered: 7-2005 |
@Honestwitness We don't have to battle with flesh and blood but with evil spirits, they are the only enemies. As an adventist I had my world separated in two, "outside" being Babylon, "inside" being the "remnant" SDA church. I was taught that outsiders cannot be trusted, since they are deceived by Satan, while insiders are worthy of my trust. In this way, not only the devil and his angels were personal enemies of my faith, but people made of flesh and blood were also my enemies. The difficult part was to understand that my battle is not with enemies of flesh and blood, but with evil spirits. The same person, in the same context may act in harmony either with the kingdom of God, being influenced by God, or in harmony with the kingdom of Satan, being influenced by him. Peter affirmed that Jesus is Son of God, and Jesus told him that the Father discovered this to him. A little time later, he considered necessary to rebuke Jesus for his plans related to crucifixion. Jesus had to tell Peter "Get behind me Satan", explaining that the origin of his thoughts this time didn't reside in God. This means that the category "deceived" is not limited to people embracing a toxic system of belief. Even as children of God we can be lured to give voice to thoughts antithetical to the gospel and to God. There is no clear-cut categorization in a mirror: former adventists are friends, adventists are enemies. Both categories can act as friends of God or enemies of him, the only constant enemy is Satan and his evil spirits. Yes, there is no neutral ground, but the front doesn't have a visible fixed manifestation. Consequently we can't assume that adventists can not be trusted in regard to spiritual things because they are deceived, as previously we thought about those from Babylon as being deceived, while thinking that our brothers and sisters are "safe." We would only enforce our former mentality of "us versus them" that will distort our interaction with our former brothers. I'm still processing these things, because I recognize my need of correction regarding the way I approached adventists in the past. Gabriel | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 968 Registered: 7-2004  |
Gabriel, I recall interactions just like what you describe. And while painful initially, they brought about much deeper understanding and taught me to be more precise in how I handled the Word. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 597 Registered: 7-2005 |
@Ric You highlighted the reason why I'm back on this forum: I want to see former adventists improve their understanding of God's Word through conversations with adventists and other people coming from different traditions of interpretation. I think that any conversation, how unfruitful may seem at first, has the potential to teach us a lesson. I think the pain is the price we have to pay for anything valuable in this world. If conversations are painful sometimes, the knowledge that I'm making progress in understanding God's Word, myself and my neighbor gives me all the reasons to continue the conversation. I don't know how important is to be open to interaction with people of different persuasions than ourselves. As adventist it was instilled in us the fear of being deceived by others, and the way to keep us safe was through isolation. Don't read the Church Fathers, they brought the apostasy in the church. Don't read X, don't talk with Y, they are apostate. Read only the books written by our theologians, they are enough, don't pay attention to theologians outside of our way of interpreting the Bible. A message that was explicitly found in the sermon of Ted Wilson at the last GC. That's why I think that we must be aware of this weakness and deliberately fight against it. When we were adventists, we had read only adventist books, or if we ventured outside, the majority of spiritual meal was composed by adventist books. In this way we kept ourselves deliberately in ignorance. Now, since we are former adventists, the tendency is to read or interact in the new-found tradition of interpretation: New Covenant Theology (NCT). Since NCT is perceived as being in conflict with Covenant Theology (CT), the tendency is to dismiss CT books or authors who will make a case against NCT. The problem is that no system of interpretation is perfect, reflecting partially the humanity of the interpreters, what they bring to the table. We all have our blind spots, areas which need correction, but how can we test if our interpretations are correct if we don't interact with different viewpoints? Or what about lutheran theology? Can lutheran theology provide useful corrections for my understanding? I'm sure it can. Even if I'm not lutheran, I welcome the contribution of lutheran theologians, I'm a regular listener to issuesetc. If I'm only listening to people coming from my own tradition of interpretation, this will not help me see the blind spots, since probably they have the same blind spots as myself. But when I'm listening to people outside, I can benefit from their corrective insights. I mentioned the Church Fathers. If people have time, reading Church Fathers would be a very positive experience. They will have the opportunity to test their faith and amend their views in conversation with the Church from the first centuries. Surely these men erred, but there is more probability that they erred in other points that we err today. They come from different background than ours, they lived in a different world, we can see how their interpretation is affected by their cultural and pagan backgrounds. But we have less ability to see how our own cultural and pagan background (adventism and the secular modern and postmodern society) affects our interpretation of the Bible. That's why interacting with old writers is important. And regarding the church fathers, while not a popular task in the evangelical world, will help many rejoice to see the same faith they have reflected in the writings of these old theologians. Gabriel | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 969 Registered: 7-2004 |
I agree Gabriel! I think it is far more valuable to be widely read than to only know one viewpoint forward and back. I only recently discovered issuesetc, I like to read more than listen so I read through their archive of articles. Much of it isn't even that distinctively Lutheran. My favorite authors are primarily CT even when I don't fully agree with all of their conclusions. I haven't read as much NCT, but I find that it's depth reflects the fact that it is relatively new. The fascinating thing about church history and reading the ECFs or the Reformation era authors is seeing how few debates and heresies are new. My 30,000+ posts on CARM helped me to clarify what I believed and why, and to be able to explain from Scripture the specific reasons. But it reached a point of needing some new step in what I was doing online. I returned to posting here after a lengthy layoff from all forums hoping I could provide some encouragement, a slight different perspective, and some basic explanations for newly transitioning formers. A healthy transition requires interaction with people who understand the unique aspects of your experience (other formers) AND people who have an outside, objective view of your experience. It doesn't work to live in denial of our unique experiences because of SDAism, but it also doesn't work to live immersed in only that experience. | ||
| Grace1958_f Registered user Username: Grace1958_f Post Number: 39 Registered: 3-2011 |
Forgive me for being ignorant, but what is CARM? Thanks. |
