Theology IV

[Willow Oran]

I mean it as an equalizing term; acknowledgment that each of these belief systems informs or did inform somebody's way of life and that for the purposes of this discussion, no one system will be assumed to be better than the others.

There is good evidence that they were believed to be true.

Yes, there is. Unfortunately, good evidence doesn't constitute knowing, but we both know that so let's move on.

Plato spends some time arguing in Phaedrus against people who interpreted the Greek gods literally, which suggests it was a common view in his time. That has implications on their earlier interpretations of the Typhon. Also, the "Baal" gods were certainly interpreted literally in many places of the Mediterranean, before Christ. Many children were burned to the pantheon in times of distress, and less intimate sacrifices were offered to the gods frequently, in exchange for their expected aid. That implies that a lot of people interpreted Yam and Mot literally too. I asked my Honors Class's mythology professor once about this, and he said the masses appear to have commonly interpreted the gods literally, though many of the intellectuals did not.

It is fairly certain that sacrifice was a key element of greek and near eastern worship, though human sacrifice (at least to the greek pantheon) seems to have been reserved for very distressing times. It is mentioned twice in the Iliad that I can remember: Ipheginia on the way to Troy, and the twelve Trojan boys at Patroclus' funeral games. Cattle, wine, and barley are much more common.

One of the interesting things about Greek pantheism is that it was cult based. So in addition to the Olympian gods, there were the local cults worshipping lesser, nature gods and in the later Dark age and Classical periods, heroes as well; and on top of that, the Olympian gods were often localized in some way as well. Historically speaking, there is no one Greek religion, there's a common set of deities worshipped via similar practices but worshipped in different combinations, for different reasons, in different places.

Now there is evidence that Hesiod's father came from a settlement along the western coast of Anatolia, and that he may have had contact with Phonecians due to trading. It is possible that Hesiod's account of Typhoeus was influenced by his family's Near East connection which would explain the parallels with the Levantine religions, but would also mean that we can't generalize it as a common feature of the Grecian belief system.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have provided quite a lot of points of parallel between the Christian "serpent" and the "serpent" figure that fights the gods from these other religions, and you have not tried to disprove any of them. I have also shown how this battle between chaos and order is also reflected in the battle between Satan and Jesus. But if you don't find all this convincing of my view that these religions had a "devil figure" that closely (though certainly not perfectly) parallels Satan in the Christian religion, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, but what pantheon of gods does NOT fight among themselves? (Bunch of devine hotheads, the lot of them.) The point is that the gods you mentioned, while having a chaotic characteristic, are NOT in the same way associated with sin, lawlesness, evil and whatever other defining quality Satan exhibits. Chaos, in many religions, is not considered to be evil, but something to be shaped or ordered. Several creation-myths start with with a chaos-figure that leads to/or is involved in the creation of the world and mankind.

There is also an hypothesis that the serpent and the dragon became associated with the devil, because they featured in other temporary religions. So it would make sense for the jews to distance themselves by making those symbols on equal footing with their symbol of evil. In that aspect, Satan is sort of a derivative of already existing mythological figures. However, the combination of characteristics in Satan is relatively unique to christianity.

So to "twist" other religions' beliefs to remove the imperfect and emphasize in them what is united with the perfect, so that people's lives may be more greatly blessed, is a virtuous act. Resisting error and promoting truth is a good thing!

*tries very hard not to put on her angry-face* But...

Excuse me!?

Changing other people's myths to fit your religion is good? Virtuous!? Sacrilege, I say! Adapting ancient myths to include christian themes is like tearing the acropolis down to put a gothic building on its foundations. Oh, the gothic building may look equally pretty and useful, and may be of historical value in its own right, but the ancient one is lost forever, and a irreparable loss for mankind it is too.

Imperfect? Erronous? Really, now Lief! How does that fit with your desire for historical accuracy? It doesn't add up. There should be no judgement on the contents when one strifes for historical accurary. The original elements should be preserved just as well, not changed to fit local or temporary customs. Changing them would mean losing valuable information. Nor, I might add, is it very tolerant of other people's beliefs...

Sorry, but one just does not 'amend' other culture's myths. It's a lesser evil than just burn them, but... *twitch*... just don't, okay?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

I mean it as an equalizing term; acknowledgment that each of these belief systems informs or did inform somebody's way of life and that for the purposes of this discussion, no one system will be assumed to be better than the others.

Of exactly which discussion? Of my comparisons with you and Eärniel of the Christian "devil" to devil stories in other religions, sure, there is no point to any such truth claims. To other discussions going on, such as my discussion with Nurv, it is extremely relevant, though. I can't promise not to talk about this truth aspect when it does become relevant.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Yes, there is. Unfortunately, good evidence doesn't constitute knowing, but we both know that so let's move on.

Yes, I don't claim to "know" that the devil figures in other religions have close parallels to Satan, but I do believe so because the evidence appears to support this perspective.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

It is fairly certain that sacrifice was a key element of greek and near eastern worship, though human sacrifice (at least to the greek pantheon) seems to have been reserved for very distressing times. It is mentioned twice in the Iliad that I can remember: Ipheginia on the way to Troy, and the twelve Trojan boys at Patroclus' funeral games. Cattle, wine, and barley are much more common.

Those two references from the Iliad don't really confirm your point that human sacrifice was reserved for "very" distressing times. Rather the reverse . . .

But I agree with you that other material goods were much more common than human beings, and that humans were generally only offered in times of great distress. I found that in my research on the Carthaginians, so I know it was true of them.

The fact that offerings of food were made to the gods also suggests a belief in their literal reality. If the gods were seen as metaphorical, they wouldn't require gifts. Except possibly to improve people's status in the community, but this was not the perspective with which people often offered up goods to the gods. Usually, they're described as giving gifts to the gods to get back blessings or answers to prayers (such as safety for a ship about to set sail on a trading venture).

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

One of the interesting things about Greek pantheism is that it was cult based. So in addition to the Olympian gods, there were the local cults worshipping lesser, nature gods and in the later Dark age and Classical periods, heroes as well;

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

and on top of that, the Olympian gods were often localized in some way as well.

Hmm; I didn't know about that.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Historically speaking, there is no one Greek religion, there's a common set of deities worshipped via similar practices but worshipped in different combinations, for different reasons, in different places.

Now there is evidence that Hesiod's father came from a settlement along the western coast of Anatolia, and that he may have had contact with Phonecians due to trading. It is possible that Hesiod's account of Typhoeus was influenced by his family's Near East connection which would explain the parallels with the Levantine religions, but would also mean that we can't generalize it as a common feature of the Grecian belief system.

I'm certainly willing to admit the possibility.

I don't know anything about Hesiod's father, and so cannot discuss him intelligently.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Are you actually comparing the validity of faith with the validity of math???

Wow, Lief. Just. . .wow.

Curufin, you must realize that the word math is derived from the hebrew word amath, which means truth. A great part of the secrets and prophecies in the bible are revealed through math:

Eccle. (Apoc) 27:9 The birds will resort unto their like; so will truth return unto them that practise in her.

2+2=4, is this not the truth or is it a lie. Math does not and cannot contradict itself, if you remember that when you try to understand the bible, you will unlock a great many truths/amath hidden there in. One example:

2 Peter 3
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

God made man on the 5th day. Was that the 5th day or was it 5000 years. The scriptures say that the the second coming will be on the third day. Was it the third day or was it 3000 years. Jesus died over 2000 years ago. If the 1st day/1st 1000 years started the day after he died and the second day/2000 years started on the 1001st year, the 3rd day or 3000th year started in 2001 give or take a couple years since the Gregorian calendar is not 100% accurate. Right now it's 2008 going on to 2009, we are definately in the third day:

Matthew 24:3-34
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows...

...32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

So are we not seeing wars and rumors of wars, earth quakes, tsunamies, droughts etc. and we all know that there are more things to come, it's not going to get better. So this is the generation that will not pass away before these things/the end of the world will happen. This is the third day, it will all happen anytime now, next month, next year, in the next 2 years...soon, the kingdom comes.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Sorry, but what pantheon of gods does NOT fight among themselves? (Bunch of devine hotheads, the lot of them.) The point is that the gods you mentioned, while having a chaotic characteristic, are NOT in the same way associated with sin, lawlesness, evil and whatever other defining quality Satan exhibits. Chaos, in many religions, is not considered to be evil, but something to be shaped or ordered. Several creation-myths start with with a chaos-figure that leads to/or is involved in the creation of the world and mankind.

Chaos must be destroyed or in some way suppressed for the creation of the world to occur, in many of these stories, if I recall correctly. The Hindu dragon-goddess Vitrira, for instance, was dismembered, and out of her body parts the cosmos was fashioned. Typhon must be defeated and thrown into Tartarus; Yam must be defeated and thrown into the depths.

Typhon gives birth to a host of monsters that kill the Greek people (in the myth) until heroes save them. Those monsters would definitely have been seen in a negative light, and the heroes' actions praised. Chaos gives birth to monsters, and in godly order are the deities that the people see fit to worship.

And what do you have when you have chaos? The existence of chaos is the existence of lawlessness. They are one and the same thing. That is a parallel between the scriptural Satan and the "dragons" described in these other religions. Chaos is presented in a negative light in the Greek religion, as something that must be overcome. I don't know how much it was seen in a negative light in other religions of the time, such as the Sumerian, for I don't yet have that information, but even at that time it was clearly an opposing force to order and the gods.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

There is also an hypothesis that the serpent and the dragon became associated with the devil, because they featured in other temporary religions. So it would make sense for the jews to distance themselves by making those symbols on equal footing with their symbol of evil. In that aspect, Satan is sort of a derivative of already existing mythological figures.

You started this with "there is an hypothesis . . ." and ended it with, "Satan is sort of a derivative . . ." There is a hypothesis that this is so, I agree. As for the later sentence, though, which appears to be based on the previous two, it does not follow.

I disagree with your proposition that the devil figure was seen, either by the Jews or by the ancient Eastern cultures, as only a "symbol." See mine and Willow Oran's most recent posts, for evidence supporting this. I also think the evidence is strong that the "chaos" of Typhon and other such entities was often seen in a negative light. That doesn't mean they saw it as "pure evil," but certainly as an "opposing force," and probably even (in the case of Typhon) an enemy of mankind. Chaos is also strongly associated with Satan and is deeply ingrained in his evil, in Christian thought (he rules "lawlessness").

Originally Posted by Eärniel

However, the combination of characteristics in Satan is relatively unique to christianity.

Well, if you'd modify your statement so that it said, "the exact combination of characteristics," I'd agree. The Muslim Shaitan also lacks the exact characteristics of Satan in Christianity, because he is not the "god-killer" like the devils of the ancient religions I cited, who after death the god rose to strike down. He is the evil tempter and enemy of humanity, though. These religions all definitely appear to have figures roughly parallel to Satan, but with important differences. There isn't really a "tempter" image in the ancient religions, for example, though there is the chaotic god-killer who opposes humanity and divinity alike, who seeks to take god's place on his holy mountain, and who is ultimately struck down in defeat. All this is important and close parallelism to Christianity's "Satan." The Muslim Shaitan's story contains different aspects of Christianity's "devil," such as his original sin of hubris, his wickedness and his role as a tempter, but it loses many of those common connections with the ancient religions that I mentioned.

All these beliefs are clearly connected figures in religious thought, who strongly parallel one another, though with important differences.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

*tries very hard not to put on her angry-face* But...

Excuse me!?

Changing other people's myths to fit your religion is good? Virtuous!? Sacrilege, I say! Adapting ancient myths to include christian themes is like tearing the acropolis down to put a gothic building on its foundations. Oh, the gothic building may look equally pretty and useful, and may be of historical value in its own right, but the ancient one is lost forever, and a irreparable loss for mankind it is too.

Imperfect? Erronous? Really, now Lief! How does that fit with your desire for historical accuracy? It doesn't add up. There should be no judgement on the contents when one strifes for historical accurary. The original elements should be preserved just as well, not changed to fit local or temporary customs. Changing them would mean losing valuable information. Nor, I might add, is it very tolerant of other people's beliefs...

Sorry, but one just does not 'amend' other culture's myths. It's a lesser evil than just burn them, but... *twitch*... just don't, okay?

I don't believe I said anything about destroying historical manuscripts . . . If the document isn't going to hurt anybody, sure, archive it. Though if it is going to hurt people, I would approve of destroying it. Documents, and the ideas they transfer, have a powerful impact on people, and it can be good or it can be bad. How many lives would be saved if jihadi rhetoric was banned in more countries? I don't believe in such a broad "Free Speech" as that which presently exists.

But what I was actually trying to say in the post you're responding to is that it's a good thing to affirm what one agrees with in other religions, and build on those connections. That's a useful tool for helping people into conversion (which I see as good), and other people's cultures can teach us valuable lessons too. Connecting other people's religious figures with our own and showing the parallels, and cutting away the errors in people's thought through conversion and cultural adjustment is beneficial . . .

You know what, whatever . I know your Enlightenment mindset isn't going to allow us unity on these matters, so I don't think there's much point in bothering .

[Willow Oran]

Typhon must be defeated and thrown into Tartarus; Yam must be defeated and thrown into the depths.

Typhon gives birth to a host of monsters that kill the Greek people (in the myth) until heroes save them. Those monsters would definitely have been seen in a negative light, and the heroes' actions praised. Chaos gives birth to monsters, and in godly order are the deities that the people see fit to worship.

You refer to two different beings here.

Typhon did indeed father a host of monsters on his mate, Echidna, and Zeus chose to allow those monsters to live as challenges to future heroes.

Typhoeus is the monsterous Titan who challenged Zeus (at least partly at the behest of his mother Earth, who was angry that Zeus had thrown her other sons into Tartarus) and was defeated.

Granted, they are both big and ugly and in opposition to the Olympian gods, but please, two different beings.

I also think the evidence is strong that the "chaos" of Typhon and other such entities was often seen in a negative light. That doesn't mean they saw it as "pure evil," but certainly as an "opposing force," and probably even (in the case of Typhon) an enemy of mankind. Chaos is also strongly associated with Satan and is deeply ingrained in his evil, in Christian thought (he rules "lawlessness").

I suspect that both Typhon and Typhoeus were seen in a negative light and probably seen as embodying bad traits; there's a line in that section of Phaedrus you mentioned that says, "as puffed up with pride as Typhon."
However, I don't think either was actually seen as an enemy of mankind. There's no direct contact through which such enmity would occur. The effects of those beings on the world are troublesome to Men, and the idea of them is frightening, but the actual beings are safely stowed in Tartarus by the time Men show up in the myths and unlike Satan, there's no indication that they rule Tartarus or that they can get out to make trouble for humans.

That's a useful tool for helping people into conversion (which I see as good), and other people's cultures can teach us valuable lessons too. Connecting other people's religious figures with our own and showing the parallels, and cutting away the errors in people's thought through conversion and cultural adjustment is beneficial . . .

I think it's the cutting away the errors bit that she (and I) object to. Finding connections between religions in the name of fostering religious tolerance is a good thing. Unfortunately, conversion and cultural 'adjustment' tended to be rather violent at the times when Christianity was busy replacing pantheistic systems...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

You refer to two different beings here.

Typhon did indeed father a host of monsters on his mate, Echidna, and Zeus chose to allow those monsters to live as challenges to future heroes.

Typhoeus is the monsterous Titan who challenged Zeus (at least partly at the behest of his mother Earth, who was angry that Zeus had thrown her other sons into Tartarus) and was defeated.

Granted, they are both big and ugly and in opposition to the Olympian gods, but please, two different beings.

Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

I suspect that both Typhon and Typhoeus were seen in a negative light and probably seen as embodying bad traits; there's a line in that section of Phaedrus you mentioned that says, "as puffed up with pride as Typhon."

Interesting. Thanks for bringing that up; the specific "pride" reference is yet another connection to Satan, whose original sin in Islam and Christianity is supposed to have been pride. While Hesiod doesn't mention Typhon's first fault being pride, the specific reference to the immensity of his pride is interesting, in view of the Christian perspective.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

However, I don't think either was actually seen as an enemy of mankind.

No, I wouldn't really put it in those exact terms either, I guess . . . I was looking at it in the sense that his offspring were certainly enemies of mankind, and as he was their father, he would through the children have been an indirect enemy of mankind.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

There's no direct contact through which such enmity would occur. The effects of those beings on the world are troublesome to Men, and the idea of them is frightening, but the actual beings are safely stowed in Tartarus by the time Men show up in the myths and unlike Satan, there's no indication that they rule Tartarus or that they can get out to make trouble for humans.

True, those would be a couple of differences between the older religions and Christianity.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

I think it's the cutting away the errors bit that she (and I) object to. Finding connections between religions in the name of fostering religious tolerance is a good thing. Unfortunately, conversion and cultural 'adjustment' tended to be rather violent at the times when Christianity was busy replacing pantheistic systems...

Sometimes, yes. The story is a lot more complex than that, of course . . .

[Willow Oran]

While Hesiod doesn't mention Typhon's first fault being pride, the specific reference to the immensity of his pride is interesting, in view of the Christian perspective.

If you look at a timeline of world religions, the initial appearance of Judaism is dated to just a little later than the probable fall of Troy and the written form of the Old Testament was in contemporary development with the works that are our primary sources for Greek Mythology.

That reference to pride is Plato's, rather than Hesiod's, and while it is only possible that Hesiod may have been exposed to stories of Near Eastern religions, it is almost certain that Plato would have.
However, it is doubtful that Plato would have borrowed the idea, since, being a citizen of Athens during its rise, he likely would have considered his native beliefs the Truth (if anything, he was a philosopher), and anything to do with the Old Testament at most an interesting belief of those weird monotheists across the sea.

That reference to pride comes in the context of a decision to argue in favor of Love, for fear of offending the gods. This is important. Pride in a purely human context was generally not bad in ancient Greece. You wanted to be proud of your household and your own deeds, it was good to be the best. Pride in dealings with the gods on the other hand was bad, because it usually led to (often deadly) retribution from the gods. That shows up as a theme in a number of myths; Perseus and Andromeda being the first to mind.

[inked]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No, Inked, I expect you to read more carefully that that. Curufin quoted Lief, I believe. That's not a statement about Satan being concurrent with Jesus, and it's playing pretty hilariously fast and loose with that whole Creation story. Until recently, there wasn't even a way to discuss "billions of years" and it's sure not due to Christian theology that there is one now. If we left those guys alone, we'd still be at "on the 7th day He rested" and mean SEVEN DAYS, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SUNDAYS OFF. But it's "seven days, so rest on the Sabbath" when it's convenient, and "well, 7 days actually means billions of years" when the facts of science are so obvious that people know they look like morons disputing them. It's "the Bible is inerrant" when we're quoting Leviticus 18:22, " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. But Leviticus 12:3 "On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised." is just a general suggestion. Or maybe that whole "eighth day" goes back to "billions of years plus a day" so keep your **** intact, or remove it at birth, or whatever.

And Jesus says he saw it, so that proves his divinity. But "Weakening the nations" in some way can be applied "billions of years before humanity was even created."

Very sloppy thinking. All around.

SACA, I think you have me conflated or confused with someone else. I got chided for being a theistic evolution sort-of-guy remember. You may not agree with my take, but I have committed the hobgoblin of little minds - "a foolish consistency".

And I noted my opinion can be documented back to Origen, recall.

And I said I wouldn't get forced into someone else's corner to suit their argument.

I haven't written about "weakening the nations". I have written more than the 'Moot can bear about some of the other items you mention but not in the arguments you cite (unless my neurons are like, glazed over with prions or such). If you can refute these statements by showing me a post where I said the alleged sayings, I'll eat a sheet of paper with salt in penance for faulty memory.

Otherwise, you might want to get after whomever. I'll warn 'em if you can find 'em.

[Lief Erikson]

Inked, Sis's original post about the 7 days was criticizing me, not you. I didn't bother to respond as I didn't think it would serve any purpose.

Willow Oran, thanks for the information . It is very interesting. I enjoy talking about these ancient religions with you; you know a good deal more than I do on these and contribute a lot to my understanding. I'll keep in mind what you've said about Hesiod and Plato. I definitely appreciate your comments very much.

BTW, something I'm curious about is why did you choose the username you did?



I think I'll need to leave this thread for a while, just about immediately . . . I've been on it all day today, and I've got several free or almost completely free days ahead, in which I have plans to write some of a book I'm writing. I'm afraid this discussion will keep me hooked, so I think I should cut free completely.

I may respond to Nurv a little more, but I think I really should leave if I'm going to have much else on my mind and on paper in the upcoming hours and days. Thanks for some excellent discussion, friends .

[Willow Oran]

To satisfy your curiosity: Willow is the name of an original character of mine, when I joined that name was already taken, so I added Oran as a surname of sorts.

I also should be attending to homework. I have a fiction piece to revise, a folklore final to study for and a final paper to write for my Bronze Age Greece class.
Most awesome essay prompt ever: It's a thought experiment taking Hesiod and essentially sending him back in time to the Mycenaean age as an exploration of his claim that he would rather have been born in any time but his own.

Best of luck with the writing.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Curufin, you must realize that the word math is derived from the hebrew word amath, which means truth.

Close, but not quite. It's from Greek Mathema, meaning science (which, in ancient Greek ideas, was the term used for true knowledge).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

To satisfy your curiosity: Willow is the name of an original character of mine, when I joined that name was already taken, so I added Oran as a surname of sorts.

I also should be attending to homework. I have a fiction piece to revise, a folklore final to study for and a final paper to write for my Bronze Age Greece class.
Most awesome essay prompt ever: It's a thought experiment taking Hesiod and essentially sending him back in time to the Mycenaean age as an exploration of his claim that he would rather have been born in any time but his own.

Best of luck with the writing.

That sounds brilliant . Have fun with the writing!

[Nurvingiel]

I'm going to bow out for a while, but remind me to reply (eventually) to this post Lief. Also, if I said anywhere that Jesus's sacrifice wasn't for everybody, I apologize, because I don't actually believe that.

I do think that Jesus gave His life for all people.

But I am much too busy to debate right now.

[Lief Erikson]

Sounds good- Willow and I are signing off for a while too.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Oh, pull the other one, Inked.

Chided? I was "chided" by you for criticising Lief's quote by you posting in support of ElTel. Go look.

So I told you to go back and read more carefully, and THEN I explained, in more depth, my objection to LIEF's "billions of years before humans were created" business.

Not yours. I know you straddle the abyss on this one.

[inked]

Gee, SACA, you did the transition so smoothly that I missed you were chiding Lief.

Which other one should I pull

[katya]

So, remember that paper I was writing on the appeal and danger of mysticism? I finally got around to writing it today, and I'm just finishing it up, so if anyone wants to read it I'll PM it to you or something. I know Inked said you wanted to read it, right? It's not the best paper ever, but it might be interesting. If anyone can point out any factual errors (or grammar, for that matter) by Monday when I turn it in, that would be good too.

[Nurvingiel]

I would love to read it. I can PM you my email address if you want.

[katya]

Ok. I think I have a couple of your email addresses but I'm not sure which one you use now.