Loss of salvation???

[Lovette]

I don't have the copywrite to any bible.
Do you?

And really, no reply is necessary.

I don't either, but I do have notions that you can quote bible verses to justify anything, including genocide, socialism and abortion.

 

[Toknow]

Honestly, I don't believe anyone will go to heaven, because as I've argued before, all will go to the grave waiting for resurrection. Lord' Jesus's resurrection is a template for all believers to follow. And with that, I've hereby undermined your premise that "A person must BE IN HEAVEN".

You believe that we lie in the grave until the resurrection at the end of the world.

You can believe that...it's not something I care to debate since it has nothing to do with salvation.

I do have a question however, if you care to respond.

If we want to believe that the soul is a real thing even though it cannot be seen or touched...it is not physical in nature....

and if we want to believe that we have the spirit of God in us and are spiritual creatures and the spirit cannot be seen or touched...it is spiritual in nature....


Then what happens to the soul and the spirit at death?

 

[Toknow]

I don't either, but I do have notions that you can quote bible verses to justify anything, including genocide, socialism and abortion.

Yes,,,I have been trained to properly use scripture.
It's not difficult to do if a person understands their theological belief system.

As to
GENOCIDE
SOCIALISM
ABORTION

you feel you know me well enough to know that I believe in
GENOCIDE
SOCIALISM
ABORTION

???

That's pretty incredible.

 

[studier]

When you said this it left me wondering what you were getting at...

Parents chasten their children.​

Parents will punish children who refuse to heed chastening.​

Parents will kill their children for whom chastening was rejected...​

It was just the finished logic of what you said in the first part about God killing His children as the end of unheeded divine discipline. It was also a part of OC Law as I referenced for @sawdust.

I was also questioning the concept drawn from 1Cor11:30. Some, and I'm not saying I do, do not see sleep/death as discipline of His wayward child, but of a child who has had enough and walks away.

I was also questioning why God may discipline some to death and allow others to walk away. I know the answer 'He doesn't' - and the attachment to the sin unto death, but I'm questioning whatever may or may not make sense to me for whatever reasons.

 

[Roger316]

God reveals Himself.
God offers.
Man responds.
God has conditions.
Man accepts.
or rejects.

I didn't mention anything about praying.
Not going down any rabbit holes.

Let me remind you of Paul's concern in the passage you quoted. Set aside your formula and listen carefully.

1 Timothy 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,​

Here the apostle is commanding that Timothy and his readers pray for all men. Why?

1 Timothy 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.​

Paul raises a great theological question, — and it’s one that Christians have wrestled with for centuries. If we assume human free will is genuinely independent of God, then prayer for someone’s salvation seems, at first glance, unnecessary or even pointless.
Let's make this more personal. Let's talk about a parent's prayer for a child. God wants all men to be saved, so a Parent's prayer for a child's salvation is according to God's will. The Parent is asking for more than divine influence; the Parent is asking for a de facto salvation.

A parent who prays for their child’s salvation is rarely asking for “gentle influence.” They’re asking for rescue. They’re asking for God to do whatever it takes — and that request feels, emotionally, like a plea for God to override the child’s resistance. So when we say God won’t violate human freedom, it can sound like cold comfort, as though God is standing at a distance with His hands tied while a child drifts away. But that picture is far too small, and it misunderstands what real freedom and real divine action look like.

The deeper truth is that a parent’s longing for their child’s salvation is not a desire for coercion — it’s a desire for transformation. What they want is not for God to bulldoze the child’s will, but for God to heal whatever is wounding that will. A parent doesn’t want God to force belief; they want God to remove blindness, soften bitterness, dismantle lies, and break the power of fear or shame. None of that violates freedom. In fact, it restores freedom. A will that is enslaved to wounds, distortions, or despair is not “free” in any meaningful sense. So when a parent prays, they are not asking God to override freedom but to liberate it.

And this is where Paul’s statement becomes warm comfort rather than cold. If God truly desires all to be saved, then He is already inclined to do everything love can do to bring a child to Himself. A parent’s prayer doesn’t twist God’s arm; it joins God’s heart. It becomes a plea for God to surround the child with grace so persistent, so wise, so patient, and so illuminating that saying “yes” becomes genuinely possible. Not inevitable — but possible in a way it never was before. That is not a de facto salvation, but it is a de facto promise that God will not be passive. He will pursue, invite, convict, comfort, and call — not by violating freedom, but by awakening it.

 

[studier]

Here it is....
https://christianchat.com/threads/loss-of-salvation.215327/post-5704109


How can a "brother or sister" refer to an atheist?

​

If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God ​

will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. ​

I am not saying that you should pray about that.​

​

1 John 5:16​

'sister' is not in the Text.

Can you show us why 'brother' is a believer here? 'brother' is not always a believer in the Text.

 

[Roger316]

That is a not true. Your post contradicts itself. You say sinless perfection is not implied and your Greek scholar reference says we do not keep on sinning. If you don't see the difference between what you said and your reference I am not sure what else needs to be said other than the present active indicative is an on going action from the one being spoken of. And it is being stated as a fact. Something that is established now and is ongoing. The Greek agrees with the CLV provided below. It needs to be translated "not sinning" because that is what is being said,.

https://studybible.info/CLV/1 John 5:18 We are aware that everyone who has been begotten of God is not sinning, but he who is begotten of God is keeping himself, and the wicked one is not touching him."

John says that a person who is in fellowship with God will no longer keep on sinning or practice sin. He isn't suggesting that a person who is in fellowship with God will never experience a moral failure.

It's like this, It's as if John is describing the flight of an arrow. We can see by the flight of an arrow what direction it is headed. We can see if it is headed for the target or not.

By analogy, John is describing the trajectory of a person's life. If someone consistently practices sin, they are like an arrow moving away from God. Conversely, those who practice goodness, righteousness, and truth are like arrows flying toward God. The man might miss the target occasionally, but it isn't for lack of trying.

 

[Roger316]

Do you know what it means to spell out your approach - your Crabtree theory?

Let's begin with Romans 9, and please bear with me because I can hear someone say, "Not again!.

In Romans 9:19–20 Paul introduces a subargument that invites his readers to reflect on the fundamental difference between God and humanity. When he asks, “Who are you, O man…?” he isn’t scolding them or shutting down honest questions; he’s calling them to consider their quiddity — their nature as creatures who do not stand on equal footing with their Creator. Paul’s point is that humans often approach divine mysteries as though they were peers evaluating another human’s decisions, rather than finite beings trying to grasp the purposes of an infinite God. His rhetorical question is meant to reorient the reader, not humiliate them: to remind them that understanding God’s ways requires humility, perspective, and an awareness of our own limits. In that context, Paul is not silencing inquiry but grounding it in the reality of who we are and who God is.

I want to put my finger on something that most people never notice. The monergism/synergism debate often ends up sounding like God and humanity are two agents operating on the same plane, competing for “percentage shares” of the causal pie. Even when theologians insist that’s not what they mean, the structure of the debate tends to frame God and man as if they were peers whose actions must be balanced against each other. And that’s precisely the problem Paul is trying to dissolve in Romans 9.

Monergists sometimes speak as though God must do all the work because if humans contribute anything, God’s sovereignty is diminished — as though God and man were two craftsmen working on the same bench. Synergists sometimes speak as though humans must contribute something because otherwise their dignity is diminished — as though God’s action and human action were two comparable forces that need to be kept in equilibrium. Both positions can unintentionally assume a shared causal space where God and man operate like two beings of the same order.

But biblically and philosophically, God is not a peer. He is not one agent among others. His causality is not competitive with creaturely causality; it is the ground of it. Paul’s “Who are you, O man?” is not a rebuke but a reminder: God’s action and human action are not two rival explanations but two different levels of explanation altogether. Once you recover that Creator–creature distinction — that difference in quiddity — the whole debate looks different. God can act fully, and humans can act freely, without either one diminishing the other, because they are not operating on the same plane to begin with.

Stick with me here.

I can describe this by saying that God and humanity do not operate on the same level of existence or agency. God’s way of acting is not simply a bigger, stronger version of human action; it’s action of a completely different kind. Human beings make choices within the limits of time, circumstance, and creaturely constraints, while God acts as the One who gives being, sustains reality, and works in and through all things without competing with them. When you frame it this way, the monergism/synergism debate stops sounding like two agents fighting over the same space. Instead, God’s activity becomes the very condition that makes human activity possible. That difference in order — that Creator-versus-creature distinction — is what Paul is pointing to when he says, “Who are you, O man?” He’s reminding us that God’s relationship to our choices is not that of a rival will but of the One who grounds and enables our willing in the first place.

---

If you want, I can help you craft an even shorter version for conversation, or a more philosophical version for someone who likes precision.

 

[Toknow]

Let's begin with Romans 9, and please bear with me because I can hear someone say, "Not again!.

You could hear me from there!

In Romans 9:19–20 Paul introduces a subargument that invites his readers to reflect on the fundamental difference between God and humanity. When he asks, “Who are you, O man…?” he isn’t scolding them or shutting down honest questions; he’s calling them to consider their quiddity — their nature as creatures who do not stand on equal footing with their Creator. Paul’s point is that humans often approach divine mysteries as though they were peers evaluating another human’s decisions, rather than finite beings trying to grasp the purposes of an infinite God. His rhetorical question is meant to reorient the reader, not humiliate them: to remind them that understanding God’s ways requires humility, perspective, and an awareness of our own limits. In that context, Paul is not silencing inquiry but grounding it in the reality of who we are and who God is.

I want to put my finger on something that most people never notice. The monergism/synergism debate often ends up sounding like God and humanity are two agents operating on the same plane, competing for “percentage shares” of the causal pie. Even when theologians insist that’s not what they mean, the structure of the debate tends to frame God and man as if they were peers whose actions must be balanced against each other. And that’s precisely the problem Paul is trying to dissolve in Romans 9.

This is rather silly Roger.
No one thinks they're on the same plane as God.
Your belief system discolors all biblical theology.

Monergists sometimes speak as though God must do all the work because if humans contribute anything, God’s sovereignty is diminished — as though God and man were two craftsmen working on the same bench. Synergists sometimes speak as though humans must contribute something because otherwise their dignity is diminished —

Their dignity is diminished?
Where do you learn this from?

It's because God demands obedience from us.
And we must obey because He is God...
because He is not on the same plane....
because He is sovereign. (but not sovereign as you understand it).

as though God’s action and human action were two comparable forces that need to be kept in equilibrium. Both positions can unintentionally assume a shared causal space where God and man operate like two beings of the same order.

Nonsense.

But biblically and philosophically, God is not a peer. He is not one agent among others. His causality is not competitive with creaturely causality; it is the ground of it. Paul’s “Who are you, O man?” is not a rebuke but a reminder: God’s action and human action are not two rival explanations but two different levels of explanation altogether. Once you recover that Creator–creature distinction — that difference in quiddity — the whole debate looks different. God can act fully, and humans can act freely, without either one diminishing the other, because they are not operating on the same plane to begin with.

Incredible statements.
How does a human diminish God?
You're starting from an incorrect understanding of non-calvinist theology.

Stick with me here.

I can describe this by saying that God and humanity do not operate on the same level of existence or agency. God’s way of acting is not simply a bigger, stronger version of human action; it’s action of a completely different kind. Human beings make choices within the limits of time, circumstance, and creaturely constraints, while God acts as the One who gives being, sustains reality, and works in and through all things without competing with them. When you frame it this way, the monergism/synergism debate stops sounding like two agents fighting over the same space. Instead, God’s activity becomes the very condition that makes human activity possible. That difference in order — that Creator-versus-creature distinction — is what Paul is pointing to when he says, “Who are you, O man?” He’s reminding us that God’s relationship to our choices is not that of a rival will but of the One who grounds and enables our willing in the first place.

You do find ways to sneak in compatibilist free will.

I'm done.

---

If you want, I can help you craft an even shorter version for conversation, or a more philosophical version for someone who likes precision.

 

[Toknow]

Let me remind you of Paul's concern in the passage you quoted. Set aside your formula and listen carefully.

1 Timothy 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,​

Here the apostle is commanding that Timothy and his readers pray for all men. Why?

1 Timothy 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.​

Paul raises a great theological question, — and it’s one that Christians have wrestled with for centuries. If we assume human free will is genuinely independent of God, then prayer for someone’s salvation seems, at first glance, unnecessary or even pointless.
Let's make this more personal. Let's talk about a parent's prayer for a child. God wants all men to be saved, so a Parent's prayer for a child's salvation is according to God's will. The Parent is asking for more than divine influence; the Parent is asking for a de facto salvation.

A parent who prays for their child’s salvation is rarely asking for “gentle influence.” They’re asking for rescue. They’re asking for God to do whatever it takes — and that request feels, emotionally, like a plea for God to override the child’s resistance. So when we say God won’t violate human freedom, it can sound like cold comfort, as though God is standing at a distance with His hands tied while a child drifts away. But that picture is far too small, and it misunderstands what real freedom and real divine action look like.

A parent could pray and ask God to coerce the child into salvation.
God will not conform to the parents desire.

Love is free.
And must be freely chosen.

The deeper truth is that a parent’s longing for their child’s salvation is not a desire for coercion — it’s a desire for transformation. What they want is not for God to bulldoze the child’s will, but for God to heal whatever is wounding that will. A parent doesn’t want God to force belief; they want God to remove blindness, soften bitterness, dismantle lies, and break the power of fear or shame. None of that violates freedom. In fact, it restores freedom. A will that is enslaved to wounds, distortions, or despair is not “free” in any meaningful sense. So when a parent prays, they are not asking God to override freedom but to liberate it.

And this is where Paul’s statement becomes warm comfort rather than cold. If God truly desires all to be saved, then He is already inclined to do everything love can do to bring a child to Himself. A parent’s prayer doesn’t twist God’s arm; it joins God’s heart. It becomes a plea for God to surround the child with grace so persistent, so wise, so patient, and so illuminating that saying “yes” becomes genuinely possible. Not inevitable — but possible in a way it never was before. That is not a de facto salvation, but it is a de facto promise that God will not be passive. He will pursue, invite, convict, comfort, and call — not by violating freedom, but by awakening it.

 

[studier]

Let's begin with Romans 9, and please bear with me because I can hear someone say, "Not again!.

In Romans 9:19–20 Paul introduces a subargument that invites his readers to reflect on the fundamental difference between God and humanity. When he asks, “Who are you, O man…?” he isn’t scolding them or shutting down honest questions; he’s calling them to consider their quiddity — their nature as creatures who do not stand on equal footing with their Creator. Paul’s point is that humans often approach divine mysteries as though they were peers evaluating another human’s decisions, rather than finite beings trying to grasp the purposes of an infinite God. His rhetorical question is meant to reorient the reader, not humiliate them: to remind them that understanding God’s ways requires humility, perspective, and an awareness of our own limits. In that context, Paul is not silencing inquiry but grounding it in the reality of who we are and who God is.

I want to put my finger on something that most people never notice. The monergism/synergism debate often ends up sounding like God and humanity are two agents operating on the same plane, competing for “percentage shares” of the causal pie. Even when theologians insist that’s not what they mean, the structure of the debate tends to frame God and man as if they were peers whose actions must be balanced against each other. And that’s precisely the problem Paul is trying to dissolve in Romans 9.

Monergists sometimes speak as though God must do all the work because if humans contribute anything, God’s sovereignty is diminished — as though God and man were two craftsmen working on the same bench. Synergists sometimes speak as though humans must contribute something because otherwise their dignity is diminished — as though God’s action and human action were two comparable forces that need to be kept in equilibrium. Both positions can unintentionally assume a shared causal space where God and man operate like two beings of the same order.

But biblically and philosophically, God is not a peer. He is not one agent among others. His causality is not competitive with creaturely causality; it is the ground of it. Paul’s “Who are you, O man?” is not a rebuke but a reminder: God’s action and human action are not two rival explanations but two different levels of explanation altogether. Once you recover that Creator–creature distinction — that difference in quiddity — the whole debate looks different. God can act fully, and humans can act freely, without either one diminishing the other, because they are not operating on the same plane to begin with.

Stick with me here.

I can describe this by saying that God and humanity do not operate on the same level of existence or agency. God’s way of acting is not simply a bigger, stronger version of human action; it’s action of a completely different kind. Human beings make choices within the limits of time, circumstance, and creaturely constraints, while God acts as the One who gives being, sustains reality, and works in and through all things without competing with them. When you frame it this way, the monergism/synergism debate stops sounding like two agents fighting over the same space. Instead, God’s activity becomes the very condition that makes human activity possible. That difference in order — that Creator-versus-creature distinction — is what Paul is pointing to when he says, “Who are you, O man?” He’s reminding us that God’s relationship to our choices is not that of a rival will but of the One who grounds and enables our willing in the first place.

---

If you want, I can help you craft an even shorter version for conversation, or a more philosophical version for someone who likes precision.

Sorry, and no disrespect intended, but can you point me to what you'd like me to read closely? Maybe just summarize your main point, which it looks like you're offering to do at the end.

I will tell you that I'm thinking more and more these days about the culture who's literature we're reading and how it is very different than the black and white - A or B - clarity that western minds so desire. We want all tensions resolved, but are they in a eastern & semitic thinking process?

Also, this A or B reasoning can and does - most certainly does on forums like this - result in many false dichotomies/binaries from many posters and frequently from at least one who likes to set himself apart from the 'western mind.'

IOW, we may be arguing A or B in regard to the many ways an infinite mind and perfect judge handles all things in many ways.

 

[Roger316]

This is rather silly Roger.
No one thinks they're on the same plane as God.

Most Christians believe and act as if they are on the same plane as God. They picture reality as a big house, where God and the angels live upstairs and where the rest of creation, including human beings live downstairs. In fact, the Bible teaches that God exists outside of the house altogether.

You argue as if we are on the same plane as God.

Your belief system discolors all biblical theology.

Be specific.

Their dignity is diminished?

Right. This is obvious. God a question about it?

It's because God demands obedience from us.
And we must obey because He is God...
because He is not on the same plane....
because He is sovereign. (but not sovereign as you understand it).

Here, it seems that you aren't familiar with the concepts we are discussing. I was, of course, using the term "sovereignty" as theologians do when discussing arguments for or against monergism/synergism.

You're starting from an incorrect understanding of non-calvinist theology.

Be specific.

 

[Toknow]

Most Christians believe and act as if they are on the same plane as God. They picture reality as a big house, where God and the angels live upstairs and where the rest of creation, including human beings live downstairs. In fact, the Bible teaches that God exists outside of the house altogether.

You argue as if we are on the same plane as God.

Be specific.

Right. This is obvious. God a question about it?

Here, it seems that you aren't familiar with the concepts we are discussing. I was, of course, using the term "sovereignty" as theologians do when discussing arguments for or against monergism/synergism.

Be specific.

No thanks.

 

[Roger316]

A parent could pray and ask God to coerce the child into salvation.
God will not conform to the parents desire.

Love is free.
And must be freely chosen.

That's right. I never said otherwise.

You see the problem don't you? Paul wants his readers to pray for the Salvation of their leaders, knowing that God wishes that all men be saved.

Here’s a way to frame this that is honest, theologically sharp, and pastorally grounded — and it gets right to the heart of your objection without slipping into clichés.

When someone says, “God limits His involvement to removing blindness, softening bitterness, dismantling lies, and breaking the power of fear or shame,” they’re describing synergism as though God only steps in when asked and only in certain ways. But that framing quietly assumes that God is not already doing these things universally — that He waits for human permission before offering even the most basic forms of grace. Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2 cuts against that. If God truly desires all people to be saved, then He must already be at work in every human life in a general, non-coercive way. He is already illuminating conscience, already restraining evil, already stirring longing, already calling through creation and conscience and providence. Prayer doesn’t activate a dormant God.

The real question, then, is not “Why pray for something God is already doing?” but “What changes when a human being freely joins their will to God’s saving desire?” Prayer is not a request for God to begin acting; it is a request for God to act more personally, more specifically, more intensively in the life of a particular person. It is the difference between general grace and targeted grace, between sunlight that falls on everyone and a beam of light directed into a dark room. Prayer is a way of saying, “Lord, do in this life what You are already inclined to do everywhere — but do it with particular wisdom, timing, and persistence.”

And this is where the logic becomes beautiful rather than redundant. If God is already working generally, then prayer becomes a form of cooperation with that work — not because God needs our permission, but because God has chosen to weave human willing into His own purposes. Prayer doesn’t change God’s disposition; it changes the mode and focus of His action. It is not asking God to start caring, but asking Him to concentrate His care in a way that respects freedom while still pursuing the beloved with relentless, patient grace.

 

[Roger316]

Sorry, and no disrespect intended, but can you point me to what you'd like me to read closely? Maybe just summarize your main point, which it looks like you're offering to do at the end.

I will tell you that I'm thinking more and more these days about the culture who's literature we're reading and how it is very different than the black and white - A or B - clarity that western minds so desire. We want all tensions resolved, but are they in a eastern & semitic thinking process?

Also, this A or B reasoning can and does - most certainly does on forums like this - result in many false dichotomies/binaries from many posters and frequently from at least one who likes to set himself apart from the 'western mind.'

IOW, we may be arguing A or B in regard to the many ways an infinite mind and perfect judge handles all things in many ways.

This sounds like Søren Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, which I haven't yet read but I have heard so much about it.

The summary of JAC'S view is that God transcends his creation in a manner similar to how an author transcends his novel. God is creating stories, millions of stories that all fit into a larger meganarrative.

 

[Toknow]

That's right. I never said otherwise.

You see the problem don't you? Paul wants his readers to pray for the Salvation of their leaders, knowing that God wishes that all men be saved.

Here’s a way to frame this that is honest, theologically sharp, and pastorally grounded — and it gets right to the heart of your objection without slipping into clichés.

When someone says, “God limits His involvement to removing blindness, softening bitterness, dismantling lies, and breaking the power of fear or shame,” they’re describing synergism as though God only steps in when asked and only in certain ways. But that framing quietly assumes that God is not already doing these things universally — that He waits for human permission before offering even the most basic forms of grace. Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2 cuts against that. If God truly desires all people to be saved, then He must already be at work in every human life in a general, non-coercive way. He is already illuminating conscience, already restraining evil, already stirring longing, already calling through creation and conscience and providence. Prayer doesn’t activate a dormant God.

The real question, then, is not “Why pray for something God is already doing?” but “What changes when a human being freely joins their will to God’s saving desire?” Prayer is not a request for God to begin acting; it is a request for God to act more personally, more specifically, more intensively in the life of a particular person. It is the difference between general grace and targeted grace, between sunlight that falls on everyone and a beam of light directed into a dark room. Prayer is a way of saying, “Lord, do in this life what You are already inclined to do everywhere — but do it with particular wisdom, timing, and persistence.”

And this is where the logic becomes beautiful rather than redundant. If God is already working generally, then prayer becomes a form of cooperation with that work — not because God needs our permission, but because God has chosen to weave human willing into His own purposes. Prayer doesn’t change God’s disposition; it changes the mode and focus of His action. It is not asking God to start caring, but asking Him to concentrate His care in a way that respects freedom while stil pursuing the beloved with relentless, patient grace.

You don't understand the other side,,,and your understanding of it is so far off I wouldn't even attempt to discuss this.

 

[studier]

This sounds like Søren Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, which I haven't yet read but I have heard so much about it.

The summary of JAC'S view is that God transcends his creation in a manner similar to how an author transcends his novel. God is creating stories, millions of stories that all fit into a larger meganarrative.

I've read neither - pieces only.

 

[Roger316]

You don't understand the other side,,,and your understanding of it is so far off I wouldn't even attempt to discuss this.

I pleaded with you from the very start. Let's not talk about philosophical ideas. Let's talk about the scriptures.

 

[Toknow]

I pleaded with you from the very start. Let's not talk about philosophical ideas. Let's talk about the scriptures.

What you posted is NOT philosophy.

It is an incorrect understanding of the non-calvinist side.

Even praying is affected by Calvinism.

Freely loving God is affected.

God's sovereignty is misapplied and incorrectly taught.

There's so much INCORRECT in your post that I would have no time to address it even if I wanted to.

It's always good to know what the other side believes in a war.

You do NOT know what the other side believes.

 

[Toknow]

I pleaded with you from the very start. Let's not talk about philosophical ideas. Let's talk about the scriptures.

You're most condescending.