Power corrupts. Hopefully the system has measures in place that allow corrections to be made now that it is obvious such abuse happens. Or else it continues to become even more corrupt and eventually falls.
The question: what would present day Christendom do to a man like David?
In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David's fate, it would mean we have entered a Theocracy. The Constitution warned against this. It would be in conflict with the first amendment.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote this in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists:
'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.']
It was emphasized in The Treaty of Tripoli, Article #11, which, though discussing a specific scenario, set the tone of future dealings. (1796)
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
On this basis, I propose the aforementioned question raises a moot point.
God hand picked David to be king over Israel. He was the top leader over all of Israel (1 Samuel 1).
He used that position to commit murder in the first degree. He had Bath-sheba’s husband, Uriah, killed so he could have Bath-sheba all to himself. That is outlined in 2 Samuel chapter 11. A law school could use this chapter as an example of murder in the first degree. Conspiracy also and probably a few other niceties.
God wasn’t happy about David’s behaviour (2 Sam 11:27) so he had a talk with him. He told David that things wouldn’t be going very well for him and Israel from now on. But David immediately repented and so God completely forgave him (2 Sam 12). In fact, David ended up in the Hebrew’s chapter 11 “believers hall of fame” (Heb 11:32).
So the top leader of all Israel murders an innocent man. David repented. God forgave him.
The question: what would present day Christendom do to a man like David?
A) I Samuel 1 covers Samuel, not David (who may not have been born yet.)
B) God warned Israel at length that having a king was an awful idea for them, before acquiescing to THEIR insistence that THEY wanted a king. (All of I Samuel 8.) The first king was Saul, the second was David. Both seemed ok to some people's views, but both were disastrous for Israel, each in his own way.
C) "things wouldn't be going very well for him and Israel from now on." That's remarkably understated. "But David immediately repented and so God completely forgave him". Actually, God promised David's punishment would be PUBLIC (II Samuel 12:12), that strife would never depart from David's house (II Sam 12:10). and that he'd lose from his house (II Sam 12:11), and that his future son FROM this sin would die (II Samuel 12:14.) You make it sound like God blew off David's punishments. David wasn't killed for it, but he suffered the losses he earned.
D) David repented, and is mentioned in Hebrews 11. Then again, Gideon's also mentioned in Hebrews 11, and he's hardly the poster-boy for bravery.
E) The top leader of all Israel had sex with another man's wife-and the power dynamics in play make this coercive by virtue of him being able to have her killed or everyone she cares about killed if he feels like it, so she MUST comply. David attempts to cover it up by arranging to have an innocent man murdered and made to look like an accident (the fortunes of war, but he was set up to be the only man behind enemy lines and thus certain to die.) David was unrepentant UNTIL Nathan confronted him directly with what he had done, and God's Judgement upon him for it. THEN David repented (he'd been caught and was going to be punished.) That's no better than any little kid who's not sorry UNTIL HE'S CAUGHT. THEN he's "repentant." David served his full sentence, and repented. THEN God forgave David-but David still had to live out his well-earned punishment first (as much as could happen "first",anyway- the sword never left his family during his lifetime.)
F) Present-day Christendom is not a political entity like Israel, nor a country like Israel. Furthermore, it's not a country ruled by God Almighty. So, this really doesn't seem to go anywhere close to a reasonable comparison.
A) I Samuel 1 covers Samuel, not David (who may not have been born yet.)
B) God warned Israel at length that having a king was an awful idea for them, before acquiescing to THEIR insistence that THEY wanted a king. (All of I Samuel 8.) The first king was Saul, the second was David. Both seemed ok to some people's views, but both were disastrous for Israel, each in his own way.
C) "things wouldn't be going very well for him and Israel from now on." That's remarkably understated. "But David immediately repented and so God completely forgave him". Actually, God promised David's punishment would be PUBLIC (II Samuel 12:12), that strife would never depart from David's house (II Sam 12:10). and that he'd lose from his house (II Sam 12:11), and that his future son FROM this sin would die (II Samuel 12:14.) You make it sound like God blew off David's punishments. David wasn't killed for it, but he suffered the losses he earned.
D) David repented, and is mentioned in Hebrews 11. Then again, Gideon's also mentioned in Hebrews 11, and he's hardly the poster-boy for bravery.
E) The top leader of all Israel had sex with another man's wife-and the power dynamics in play make this coercive by virtue of him being able to have her killed or everyone she cares about killed if he feels like it, so she MUST comply. David attempts to cover it up by arranging to have an innocent man murdered and made to look like an accident (the fortunes of war, but he was set up to be the only man behind enemy lines and thus certain to die.) David was unrepentant UNTIL Nathan confronted him directly with what he had done, and God's Judgement upon him for it. THEN David repented (he'd been caught and was going to be punished.) That's no better than any little kid who's not sorry UNTIL HE'S CAUGHT. THEN he's "repentant." David served his full sentence, and repented. THEN God forgave David-but David still had to live out his well-earned punishment first (as much as could happen "first",anyway- the sword never left his family during his lifetime.)
F) Present-day Christendom is not a political entity like Israel, nor a country like Israel. Furthermore, it's not a country ruled by God Almighty. So, this really doesn't seem to go anywhere close to a reasonable comparison.
All your points well said. I painted everything with a pretty broad brush. Thanks for the clarifications. Can't imagine how I mistook 1 Sam 1 for 2 Sam 11 (point A).
With regards to F: All true. But I was more wondering what individual Christians would have done. Of course today, David would be tried and probably convicted apart from any religious connections. In our society the civil trumps the lay. It's just a hypothetical question. Maybe a better question would have been, What would you have done to a man like David? Or how about Christian killer Saul?
Me? I doubt I would have been anywhere near as gracious as God.
In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David's fate, it would mean we have entered a Theocracy. The Constitution warned against this. It would be in conflict with the first amendment.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote this in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists:
'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.']
It was emphasized in The Treaty of Tripoli, Article #11, which, though discussing a specific scenario, set the tone of future dealings. (1796)
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
On this basis, I propose the aforementioned question raises a moot point.
True enough. In our society the civil trumps the lay.
I was asking a hypothetical question. Yes, a hypothetical question, by nature, is moot. Nevertheless, people engage in hypothetical questions all the time. It stimulates thought and conversation.
1) You are convinced I am a wayfer, a wafer of the wafers, in fact.
2) I leave the intellectually superior "Way" section and came to the basement.
3) You followed me to the basement. How humiliating that must have been for you. Why would you have done that?
4) The only conclusion is: you must be a closet Wafer that needs to read all the way doctrine I write. You can't get enough.
Why not just go back to Ohio and sit at the feet of queen riverbark and let her tickle your ears with her doctrine? That's clearly what you want. I know it now. You are a phony. You don't belong here at gsc.
Sorry to out you dude, but you'll feel better as time goes on. You'll finally be able to express the true wafer you. The closet is a dark place.
1) You are convinced I am a wayfer, a wafer of the wafers, in fact.
2) I leave the intellectually superior "Way" section and came to the basement.
3) You followed me to the basement. How humiliating that must have been for you. Why would you have done that?
4) The only conclusion is: you must be a closet Wafer that needs to read all the way doctrine I write. You can't get enough.
Why not just go back to Ohio and sit at the feet of queen riverbark and let her tickle your ears with her doctrine? That's clearly what you want. I know it now. You are a phony. You don't belong here at gsc.
Sorry to out you dude, but you'll feel better as time goes on. You'll finally be able to express the true wafer you. The closet is a dark place.
1) You are convinced I am a wayfer, a wafer of the wafers, in fact.
2) I leave the intellectually superior "Way" section and came to the basement.
3) You followed me to the basement. How humiliating that must have been for you. Why would you have done that?
4) The only conclusion is: you must be a closet Wafer that needs to read all the way doctrine I write. You can't get enough.
Why not just go back to Ohio and sit at the feet of queen riverbark and let her tickle your ears with her doctrine? That's clearly what you want. I know it now. You are a phony. You don't belong here at gsc.
Sorry to out you dude, but you'll feel better as time goes on. You'll finally be able to express the true wafer you. The closet is a dark place.
Rrobs,
You think and post like others I know, off the internet. You are not those people, probably, but your mind is clearly framed same as theirs since the reasoning is almost exactly similar.
Sort of exercise, posting with you.
I'm kinda bummed you just accused someone of being a closet Wayfer. It looks like you're just throwing in the towel.
True enough. In our society the civil trumps the lay.
I was asking a hypothetical question. Yes, a hypothetical question, by nature, is moot. Nevertheless, people engage in hypothetical questions all the time. It stimulates thought and conversation.
Sometimes, though, because the origin of the discussion is a hypothetical question, all the stimulating thought and conversation translates more into something like a hamster wheel that goes round and round, but having no attachment to or traction with the ground, it never gets you anywhere.
Modern day Christendom would have imprisoned David for life, and possibly had him executed. The bottom line is, it would have recognized that David needed to face justice for what he did.
For more on how people are more moral than Yahweh, see another thread...
David was a King. If you remove the king you create chaos. The whole kingdom would suffer.
It would make sense to leave him there, despite his malicious blunder. To preserve everyone else.
"God forgiving" in this case would make practical sense. Removing him to be "moral" would be foolish.
In the modern world we have a president. Those are replaced all the time anyway. This system has learned, evolved from, previous systems. Not to mention Waysider's detailed point above.
Take your pick. Coveting his neighbour's wife. Adultery. Murder. Lying. Deception (or attempted deception, in trying to pass off his babe in the womb as Uriah's). Conspiracy to murder (with the other generals whom he ordered to withdraw, leaving Uriah exposed).
A good many of these are "worthy of death" offences. And the penalty was borne by the innocent babe in the womb.
Are there allegories here? We also commit "worthy of death" offences (maybe not murder) and our sins (David's sins, too!) are paid for by the death of the innocent Jesus? Is God's not requiring the death penalty his showing mercy to David, and giving a foretaste of the mercy we can all enjoy? Is God a respecter of persons, that David should be forgiven when confronted? Do we not all receive grace and mercy if, when confronted, we 'fess up?
Note the worthy of death penalty - there isn't an instruction to kill such offenders. Indeed, God provided cities of refuge for murderers, a place to be exiled to where it would in fact be an offence if they were murderers. God delights in repentance, not in the death of people ("baddies" or otherwise).
Moses too was a cold-blooded murderer. Well, okay ... a hot-blooded murderer. He served time in exile.
As to the religious zealot and murderer Saul mentioned earlier - he went on to do great things, and it is thanks to him that we know the Good News now. He was forgiven by those whom he set out to murder - indeed, after initial fears by the believing community (new Christians), he was welcomed with open arms by them. Perhaps we should take our example from them.
US justice is much more barbaric than British justice. In the US, the death penalty might be sought.
In the UK, he would be sentenced (mandatory sentence) to life imprisonment. However, life prisoners are generally released on licence (paroled) after a number of years if (and only if) they are considered no longer a risk to society. There would be a minimum time (the "tariff") set for actual imprisonment, depending on circumstances surrounding the event, before he was eligible to apply for parole. Good behaviour (repentance) would get him out on parole earlier after the tariff was served. At any time after release, and for no particular reason, he could be recalled to prison. Is that right, fair? Better than being executed.
I think I'd go along with that as an outcome for David, then be ready to welcome him back (cautiously!) into society. Still has many skills that he could use for the betterment of society (as, in fact, David did do after being confronted). If I were a man (which I'm not), I think I'd want to keep him away from my wife!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
30
38
10
6
Popular Days
Jul 11
47
Jul 12
10
Jul 9
9
Jul 8
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 30 posts
Bolshevik 38 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 10 posts
rrobs 6 posts
Popular Days
Jul 11 2017
47 posts
Jul 12 2017
10 posts
Jul 9 2017
9 posts
Jul 8 2017
7 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Life in prison without parole.
waysider
"Dave's not here, man."
waysider
In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David'
DontWorryBeHappy
Life in prison without parole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Dave's not here, man."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How'd he become king if we didn't vote for him?
Power corrupts. Hopefully the system has measures in place that allow corrections to be made now that it is obvious such abuse happens. Or else it continues to become even more corrupt and eventually falls.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
And?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David's fate, it would mean we have entered a Theocracy. The Constitution warned against this. It would be in conflict with the first amendment.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote this in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists:
'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.']
It was emphasized in The Treaty of Tripoli, Article #11, which, though discussing a specific scenario, set the tone of future dealings. (1796)
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
On this basis, I propose the aforementioned question raises a moot point.
Dave's not here.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
LOL waysider! Weekend At Bernie's prequel!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) I Samuel 1 covers Samuel, not David (who may not have been born yet.)
B) God warned Israel at length that having a king was an awful idea for them, before acquiescing to THEIR insistence that THEY wanted a king. (All of I Samuel 8.) The first king was Saul, the second was David. Both seemed ok to some people's views, but both were disastrous for Israel, each in his own way.
C) "things wouldn't be going very well for him and Israel from now on." That's remarkably understated. "But David immediately repented and so God completely forgave him". Actually, God promised David's punishment would be PUBLIC (II Samuel 12:12), that strife would never depart from David's house (II Sam 12:10). and that he'd lose from his house (II Sam 12:11), and that his future son FROM this sin would die (II Samuel 12:14.) You make it sound like God blew off David's punishments. David wasn't killed for it, but he suffered the losses he earned.
D) David repented, and is mentioned in Hebrews 11. Then again, Gideon's also mentioned in Hebrews 11, and he's hardly the poster-boy for bravery.
E) The top leader of all Israel had sex with another man's wife-and the power dynamics in play make this coercive by virtue of him being able to have her killed or everyone she cares about killed if he feels like it, so she MUST comply. David attempts to cover it up by arranging to have an innocent man murdered and made to look like an accident (the fortunes of war, but he was set up to be the only man behind enemy lines and thus certain to die.) David was unrepentant UNTIL Nathan confronted him directly with what he had done, and God's Judgement upon him for it. THEN David repented (he'd been caught and was going to be punished.) That's no better than any little kid who's not sorry UNTIL HE'S CAUGHT. THEN he's "repentant." David served his full sentence, and repented. THEN God forgave David-but David still had to live out his well-earned punishment first (as much as could happen "first",anyway- the sword never left his family during his lifetime.)
F) Present-day Christendom is not a political entity like Israel, nor a country like Israel. Furthermore, it's not a country ruled by God Almighty. So, this really doesn't seem to go anywhere close to a reasonable comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
All your points well said. I painted everything with a pretty broad brush. Thanks for the clarifications. Can't imagine how I mistook 1 Sam 1 for 2 Sam 11 (point A).
With regards to F: All true. But I was more wondering what individual Christians would have done. Of course today, David would be tried and probably convicted apart from any religious connections. In our society the civil trumps the lay. It's just a hypothetical question. Maybe a better question would have been, What would you have done to a man like David? Or how about Christian killer Saul?
Me? I doubt I would have been anywhere near as gracious as God.
Edited by rrobstypo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
True enough. In our society the civil trumps the lay.
I was asking a hypothetical question. Yes, a hypothetical question, by nature, is moot. Nevertheless, people engage in hypothetical questions all the time. It stimulates thought and conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I see what's going on here.
1) You are convinced I am a wayfer, a wafer of the wafers, in fact.
2) I leave the intellectually superior "Way" section and came to the basement.
3) You followed me to the basement. How humiliating that must have been for you. Why would you have done that?
4) The only conclusion is: you must be a closet Wafer that needs to read all the way doctrine I write. You can't get enough.
Why not just go back to Ohio and sit at the feet of queen riverbark and let her tickle your ears with her doctrine? That's clearly what you want. I know it now. You are a phony. You don't belong here at gsc.
Sorry to out you dude, but you'll feel better as time goes on. You'll finally be able to express the true wafer you. The closet is a dark place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"I see what's going on here."
Haha! There you go with that humor thing again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I don't know what else to do with DWBH's replies. It doesn't seem like he's being very serious, so I just reply in kind and have a little fun.
Edited by rrobscontent
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Rrobs,
You think and post like others I know, off the internet. You are not those people, probably, but your mind is clearly framed same as theirs since the reasoning is almost exactly similar.
Sort of exercise, posting with you.
I'm kinda bummed you just accused someone of being a closet Wayfer. It looks like you're just throwing in the towel.
I just hoped you had more depth than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sometimes, though, because the origin of the discussion is a hypothetical question, all the stimulating thought and conversation translates more into something like a hamster wheel that goes round and round, but having no attachment to or traction with the ground, it never gets you anywhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
His hypothetical analogy also appears to equate people with God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Modern day Christendom would have imprisoned David for life, and possibly had him executed. The bottom line is, it would have recognized that David needed to face justice for what he did.
For more on how people are more moral than Yahweh, see another thread...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
David was a King. If you remove the king you create chaos. The whole kingdom would suffer.
It would make sense to leave him there, despite his malicious blunder. To preserve everyone else.
"God forgiving" in this case would make practical sense. Removing him to be "moral" would be foolish.
In the modern world we have a president. Those are replaced all the time anyway. This system has learned, evolved from, previous systems. Not to mention Waysider's detailed point above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If only God in His infinite wisdom had instituted a democracy instead of a monarchy.
But how could he have known the ramifications of a monarchy.
Oh yeah.
I'll stop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Strawman. Nobody has the full answer. Democracy has it's downsides as well. Of which or system is not, technically.
Monarchies are the result of very needed purposes. They come with downsides. Each system has a price to receive the benefits.
Did God build the system(s) or is God a result of the system? Or a little of both? I don't know.
But jailing David would seem immoral to me considering the context.
Edited by Bolshevikspelling/clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Take your pick. Coveting his neighbour's wife. Adultery. Murder. Lying. Deception (or attempted deception, in trying to pass off his babe in the womb as Uriah's). Conspiracy to murder (with the other generals whom he ordered to withdraw, leaving Uriah exposed).
A good many of these are "worthy of death" offences. And the penalty was borne by the innocent babe in the womb.
Are there allegories here? We also commit "worthy of death" offences (maybe not murder) and our sins (David's sins, too!) are paid for by the death of the innocent Jesus? Is God's not requiring the death penalty his showing mercy to David, and giving a foretaste of the mercy we can all enjoy? Is God a respecter of persons, that David should be forgiven when confronted? Do we not all receive grace and mercy if, when confronted, we 'fess up?
Note the worthy of death penalty - there isn't an instruction to kill such offenders. Indeed, God provided cities of refuge for murderers, a place to be exiled to where it would in fact be an offence if they were murderers. God delights in repentance, not in the death of people ("baddies" or otherwise).
Moses too was a cold-blooded murderer. Well, okay ... a hot-blooded murderer. He served time in exile.
As to the religious zealot and murderer Saul mentioned earlier - he went on to do great things, and it is thanks to him that we know the Good News now. He was forgiven by those whom he set out to murder - indeed, after initial fears by the believing community (new Christians), he was welcomed with open arms by them. Perhaps we should take our example from them.
US justice is much more barbaric than British justice. In the US, the death penalty might be sought.
In the UK, he would be sentenced (mandatory sentence) to life imprisonment. However, life prisoners are generally released on licence (paroled) after a number of years if (and only if) they are considered no longer a risk to society. There would be a minimum time (the "tariff") set for actual imprisonment, depending on circumstances surrounding the event, before he was eligible to apply for parole. Good behaviour (repentance) would get him out on parole earlier after the tariff was served. At any time after release, and for no particular reason, he could be recalled to prison. Is that right, fair? Better than being executed.
I think I'd go along with that as an outcome for David, then be ready to welcome him back (cautiously!) into society. Still has many skills that he could use for the betterment of society (as, in fact, David did do after being confronted). If I were a man (which I'm not), I think I'd want to keep him away from my wife!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would equate casting out David with killing all your friends and family.
So he abused his power. My loved ones are ALIVE.
Why did Europe have a bunch of lordships? Because Vikings. People want to not die.
Removing the King means war. Invasion. Death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Umm, he's of INFINITE knowledge and wisdom. No, it's not a strawman argument. It's only a strawman argument if He's not what He is claimed to be.
Which is sort of my point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jailing David would have been immoral.
WOW.
Look at what theism talks us into!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You want me to sacrifice my family for some ideal? Because it looks good on paper?
Sorry about your luck, Uriah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.