Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[BigRed]

Based on your reasoning than Jesus had to rise from the dead because they suddenly became fearless in preaching the gospel not fearing mockery shame torture and death, all of them eventually being martyred

We really don't know the motives of the Apostles.
You may think they were evangelists because they knew Jesus. But they may have become evangelists because it is easier to preach and pass the basket than it is to do hard physical labor like fishing.

The Moslems are martyering themselves regularly. Does the fact that these suicide bombers die for their God make their religion correct?
Are you planning on becoming a moslem?

BigRed

 

[allright]

We really don't know the motives of the Apostles.
You may think they were evangelists because they knew Jesus. But they may have become evangelists because it is easier to preach and pass the basket than it is to do hard physical labor like fishing.

BigRed

Youve got to be kidding

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Youve got to be kidding

I read a book once about the Southern black experience after Emancipation. I think it was George Washington Carver, maybe.

Anyway, he talked about how every once in awhile, a field hand would stand up from his work and exclaim, "I feel the calling!" and then go off to be a preacher.

He seemed to think it was mostly or always because they wanted a softer life.

 

[allright]

I read a book once about the Southern black experience after Emancipation. I think it was George Washington Carver, maybe.

Anyway, he talked about how every once in awhile, a field hand would stand up from his work and exclaim, "I feel the calling!" and then go off to be a preacher.

He seemed to think it was mostly or always because they wanted a softer life.

Right after seeing what happened to Jesus they thought being scrourged and crucified would be a softer life
Really what planet are you from

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Right after seeing what happened to Jesus they thought being scrourged and crucified would be a softer life
Really what planet are you from

Oh, I don't believe that Jesus even existed in 30 CE, much less that he was crucified.

So I guess we're on different pages.

 

[BigRed]

Jesus told the people of his generation...."" "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet"" [Matthew 12:39] The sign of Jonah referred to his supposed resurrection. But besides this, Jesus promised no signs to his generation. Aren't miracles signs? So was Jesus lying when he said he would not perform any signs, or miracles? Or as I contend, this is proof that Jesus did not perform any miracles.

IMO the miracles were added to the Jesus story after Jesus' untimely death.

BigRed

 

[BigRed]

Youve got to be kidding

After Jesus died the Apostles went back to their old hard life.
John 21:3 (New American Standard Bible)
3Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing.
They fish, they catch nothing, but then one disciple thinks he sees Jesus on the shore.
John 21:7 (New American Standard Bible)
7Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.
Notice that Peter does not recognize Jesus. He "heard that it was the Lord." It is just some stranger on the shore, but at that moment Peter realizes that if Jesus were alive they could all go back to the soft evangelists life and to Hell with the hard fisherman's life.

BigRed

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Is dust alive?

Kinda, sorta.

Yes. I also trust people who don't believe it. I find strange those who do not understand what it means.

Well I guess you find me strange then....I don't understand what it means for life to come from nonliving material, which is basically what you have to believe if you negate Intelligent Design. Nor do I understand what it means for consciousness coming from unconsciousness. Makes no sense.

Ok. Replace superstition with credulity.

Credulity would be if they believed in the Resurrection based off of hearsay, but there weren't..they were basing their belief off of personal experience, which kinda seems foolish to call credulity.

Not necessarily, He could have settled for someone with average intelligence.

I recommended you...unless you are saying that you have less than average intelligence.

He would of been talking? I am not sure it is my reading skill that needs work, .

Apologies...I hail from Detroit Michigan, and at times things like that tend to slip out

Well, when you say "Jesus would have ridiculed them" you also conditionally assume something about God. How do you know that He would have ridiculed them since you are not, I assume, God either?

Then we break even *shrugs*.

Luke 21
11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

Have you actually read the Bible, or are your reading skills not OK, either?

My reading skills? Well, lets see...Luke 21:11

11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

That is what my bible reads.....wow...tell you what, just keep up the bad work.

Because it does not address their initial skepticism. They looked surprised, didn't they?

Yeah, people don't rise from the dead every day.

Nobody said: hey, that is what Jesus said a few days ago and we did not understand (for some reason); maybe it is not nonsense after all...halleluiah.

This has nothing to do with the historicity of the Resurrection. Call the disciples stupid, so what? They still witnessed the Resurrected Christ...that is what matters.

They actually believed when they saw, which made all previous announcements useless, basically.

Ok...and? So what? You just said it, they actually believed what they saw, so you admit that they saw something, right? Well then.

They called "nonsense" what the women said. Which is odd, considering that Jesus communicated his return in several occasions

So what?

Don't you find it strange considering that He showed His credentials with all the miracles He performed in life and soon after death, talking clouds, etc.?

So what? Satan and his followers turned against God despite knowing his credentials. So I guess knowing credentials doesn't mean to much huh?

Maybe they were afraid to ask the cloud, too, who knows? Probably I would have been scared as well. You never know how clouds react when you ask them things, lol.

If God exists, what is so difficult to believe about talking clouds?

 

[Knight of Albion]

Miracles - Were they actual events or parables, with a hidden message i.e. in the guise of gematria, that later unintentionally or intentionally became or were presented as fact?

My opinion is it is a personal matter for the individual to decide on for themselves.

Most of the Masters and great teachers have miraculous events attributed to them. Whatever is true matters little in this respect. The teachings of light are all that matter. If wondrous tales attract the masses and get them to listen to the message, then the purpose is served.

As for miracles. The greatest miracle of all is all about you - and within you... Open your eyes, open your heart and marvel.

 

[BigRed]

The Mother of All Reasons Why the Miracles Are Bogus.
Throughout the Gospels Jesus goes around casting out Demons.
Do Demons exist?
I am confident that demons are imaginary creatures.
Is it a miracle to cast out an imaginary creature?
If the casting out of imaginary creatures demonstrates the validity of Jesus' miracle power, then it casts serious doubt on all the rest of his supposed miracles.
My Christian friends......if you want to believe in Jesus' miracles, I fear that you will have to argue that Demons actually exist.
BigRed

 

[George-ananda]

Most of the Masters and great teachers have miraculous events attributed to them. Whatever is true matters little in this respect. The teachings of light are all that matter. If wondrous tales attract the masses and get them to listen to the message, then the purpose is served.

As for miracles. The greatest miracle of all is all about you - and within you... Open your eyes, open your heart and marvel.

The spiritual master I most revere has a ton of miraculous/paranormal stories surrounding him. But he says these are just his calling card to get the attention of people ready to learn and practice the spiritual teachings that are of the realest importance.

As for those not ready to accept spiritual things, they will dismiss these many miraculous/paranormal stories as just people's gullibility and continue on their chosen path.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The spiritual master I most revere has a ton of miraculous/paranormal stories surrounding him. But he says these are just his calling card to get the attention of people ready to learn and practice the spiritual teachings that are of the realest importance.

As for those not ready to accept spiritual things, they will dismiss these many miraculous/paranormal stories as just people's gullibility and continue on their chosen path.

You understand that for some of us, 'accepting spiritual things' means the same thing as 'taking the parlour tricks of magicians as reality' or 'allowing our senses to fool us about the nature of reality.'

I consider myself highly spiritual, but I've never witnessed a miracle which seemed real to me.

 

[George-ananda]

You understand that for some of us, 'accepting spiritual things' means the same thing as 'taking the parlour tricks of magicians as reality' or 'allowing our senses to fool us about the nature of reality.'

I have thought much about the miracles and, in my opinion, many, many cannot be explained away as 'parlor tricks'.

I consider myself highly spiritual, but I've never witnessed a miracle which seemed real to me.

Personally, I haven't either.

 

[cottage]

Because I don't want to get in to a 5 way discussion with it, which is exactly what will happen.

So you want the discussion is to be private in case others might have objections? Okay. I’ll save my arguments for when Plantinger’s modal agument comes up again – and it will come up again.

Jesus told Thomas during his post-mortem appearance "You have seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have not seen, and still believe". Modern day Christians are the ones that are blessed, because we have not seen. One of the elements of the Christian faith is in fact....FAITH....and if you are strong in your beliefs in the Christian faith, even if God showed any kind of miracle that will convince the average skeptic, Christians would say "Well, we knew it all the time". Personally, I don't need any miracles from God to convince me that he is as real as reality itself. Don't need it. And many other Christians don't need it as well.

That argument from faith doesn’t stand up very well considering that Jesus had to go looking for an alibi, seeking witnesses (500!) in order to prove what he said would happen. Why didn’t he quietly ascend to heaven, and without all the fuss? I think we know the answer to that question. The Bible writers wanted to create a fantastic storyline to present to a credulous readership.

And = so what?

I’m sorry but I still don’t know what you’re saying ‘so what’ to? Give me something to which I can respond?

Then you would be on here attempting to explain away these appearances in the same way you are attempting to explain away the appearances of Christ. Nothing would change. As mentioned previously, there isn't this missing link that you people seem to want to convince yourself with.

Yes of course I’m saying no such things happened because if they had the whole world, and not just believers, would be forced to take a very different view on mortal existence. The Resurrection is just a believers’ argument; it is not an accepted fact.

Maybe because events that are said to have happened in history aren't part of scientific inquiry....and children don't learn about The Day the Graves Opened in the same way they don't learn about "God may of did it" theories.

But I’m saying had those events really occurred in history then they would be the subject of intense scientific enquiry.

So is evolution and abiogenesis, and these are actually said to be "naturalistic", yet neither one has been proven and both are faith based.

Yes,but certainly not in the same way that you apply your faith. Scientific theories and hypotheses can be incorrect or even false, and remain open to scrutiny and modification, alteration or replacement. I don’t see too many theists arguing that the Bible is mistaken in what it claims or offering competing hypotheses.
Theists are constantly saying abiogenesis is impossible, that life cannot come from non-life. And yet here we have the holy men’s remains doing exactly that: i.e. non-living, decayed basic organic compounds from which live humans arise spontaneously.

According to Paul, they certainly believed it. So we have a source that is independent of the Gospels, and even PREDATE the Gospels concerning what the disciples believed. So once again, do you believe that the disciples believed in the Resurrection based on post-mortem appearance?

The following are not in any particular order of likelihood:
1. The Disciples believed what they thought they saw.
2. The Disciples didn’t see Jesus alive but were complicit in a ruse, but with honest intentions.
3. The testimonies of the Evangelists are copies of copies that were enhanced or otherwise not faithfully reproduced.

Well if he wrote it down at the precise moment that it was happening, one would think he would get more in depth with the story. It doesn't seem to make sense for him to write it down as it was happening, and then skip immediately back to the story of Jesus, all while this was happening right before his eyes.

Oh I absolutely agree, which is why I say it sounds as if it was fabricated in an ad hoc way to bulk up and sensationalize the entire affair.

But the witness statements themselves are historical, and if we are going by the historicity of witness statements then the history should be in favor of the case which has more history of the incident, right? So lets just mark the dead saints resurrection off as a big ole giant question mark, and lets focus on the witness statements of the Resurrection of Jesus', you know, the one that is responsible for Christianity being the world's largest religion and all.

We can’t cross examine the witnesses so we must judge them by what they say alone. If you’re going to start overlooking some parts of a testimony because they are harmful or not conducive to your case, then the entire edifice becomes open to suspicion. Matthew could be wrong on small details concerning times and places without harming his overall credibility. But this isn’t merely a careless disregard for the facts. Matthew’s spectacular claim in this particular instance lays him open to a charge of mendacity in the interest of promoting his cause. The question here is whether it can be reasonably believed that deceased persons can come back to life, and while most people would agree they cannot, Matthew is alluding to such a number doing so that it would appear to settle the matter once and for all. His statement in this respect is spoken without revealing his sources and is not supported elsewhere, which is very surprising considering it is the greater miracle. We are not expected to view it as the greater miracle of course. But if Matthew resorted to fiction in describing those holy men leaving their graves, and it was done for the purpose of setting the scene and creating a sense of awe and respect for the main event, then on that one point alone I don’t think Matthew’s account can be trusted overall. And then where else in the Gospels should we begin looking for duplicity?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you want the discussion is to be private in case others might have objections? Okay. I’ll save my arguments for when Plantinger’s modal agument comes up again – and it will come up again.

Tell ya what..start a thread on it and watch the flies come swarming around...and I will be one of those flies.

That argument from faith doesn’t stand up very well considering that Jesus had to go looking for an alibi, seeking witnesses (500!) in order to prove what he said would happen. Why didn’t he quietly ascend to heaven, and without all the fuss? I think we know the answer to that question. The Bible writers wanted to create a fantastic storyline to present to a credulous readership.

Is that the best you got, cot? Asking why didn't Jesus quietly ascend to heaven? Many answers can be given to this, but why waste time giving answers when no answer is gonna be good enough for you?

I’m sorry but I still don’t know what you’re saying ‘so what’ to? Give me something to which I can respond?

I forgot.

Yes of course I’m saying no such things happened because if they had the whole world, and not just believers, would be forced to take a very different view on mortal existence.

Not necessarily. I mean, Satan and his demons believe that God exist, yet they all rebelled against God despite this.

The Resurrection is just a believers’ argument


it is not an accepted fact.

Every belief, whether religion or otherwise is accepted only by those that believe it, and not by those that don't believe it. Tell me something I don't know.

But I’m saying had those events really occurred in history then they would be the subject of intense scientific enquiry.

What scientific experiment can you use to determine whether or not a person can rise from the dead?

Yes,but certainly not in the same way that you apply your faith.

I think it is. Abiogenesis, in my opinion, is impossible on naturalism, and until I have empirical reasons to believe otherwises, I see no reason to think that it can happen.

Scientific theories and hypotheses can be incorrect or even false, and remain open to scrutiny and modification, alteration or replacement. I don’t see too many theists arguing that the Bible is mistaken in what it claims or offering competing hypotheses.

But abiogenesis and macroevolution, in my opinion (on evolution) has not been proven, yet so many naturalists accept it by faith.

Theists are constantly saying abiogenesis is impossible, that life cannot come from non-life. And yet here we have the holy men’s remains doing exactly that: i.e. non-living, decayed basic organic compounds from which live humans arise spontaneously.

Um, cot. No one is saying that these men rose naturally from the dead. Resurrections are miracles, cot.

The following are not in any particular order of likelihood:
1. The Disciples believed what they thought they saw.

Cot, as the narratives put it...not only did they see Jesus, but they spoke with him and ate with him...how would they THINK that they see a physical person talking and eating with them??

And even if they thought they saw him when they didn't, that would not explain the empty tomb...as Jesus' body would still lay there, right?

2. The Disciples didn’t see Jesus alive but were complicit in a ruse, but with honest intentions.

That wouldn't explain the empty tomb, nor will it explain the origins of the beliefs of former skeptics James and Paul.

3. The testimonies of the Evangelists are copies of copies that were enhanced or otherwise not faithfully reproduced.

That wouldn't explain the letters of Paul that predate the Gospels at which he preached a physical Resurrection and post-mortem appearances.

Oh I absolutely agree, which is why I say it sounds as if it was fabricated in an ad hoc way to bulk up and sensationalize the entire affair.

Hellava viewpoint there.

We can’t cross examine the witnesses so we must judge them by what they say alone. If you’re going to start overlooking some parts of a testimony because they are harmful or not conducive to your case, then the entire edifice becomes open to suspicion.

I agree, if it were the case. I don't think the incident in question is harmful...since I believe that God exists and if God chooses to Resurrect people from the dead, then that is his God-ful right.

Matthew could be wrong on small details concerning times and places without harming his overall credibility. But this isn’t merely a careless disregard for the facts. Matthew’s spectacular claim in this particular instance lays him open to a charge of mendacity in the interest of promoting his cause.

You say he is promoting a cause...I say he is merely stating what occurred. Either way, there is just not enough there for you to build a case for anything.

The question here is whether it can be reasonably believed that deceased persons can come back to life

Absolutely. If God exists.

, and while most people would agree they cannot

Most people like who? Unbelievers? I would think so.

, Matthew is alluding to such a number doing so that it would appear to settle the matter once and for all.

He never alluded to a number. He said "many".

His statement in this respect is spoken without revealing his sources and is not supported elsewhere, which is very surprising considering it is the greater miracle.

Reveal his sources? I guess you were expecting a bibliography at the end of the book, huh? And what do you mean "greater" miracle? Greater in terms of quantity? That may be your view, but the Christian view is Jesus' Resurrection is greater in terms of significance.

We are not expected to view it as the greater miracle of course. But if Matthew resorted to fiction in describing those holy men leaving their graves, and it was done for the purpose of setting the scene and creating a sense of awe and respect for the main event, then on that one point alone I don’t think Matthew’s account can be trusted overall. And then where else in the Gospels should we begin looking for duplicity?

If you want to base your entire case against the Resurrection on Matthew 27, then I will leave you to it. That subject doesn't even put a small dent in the case for the Resurrection, buddy lol.

 

[viole]

Kinda, sorta.

Are ribs alive, too?

Well I guess you find me strange then....I don't understand what it means for life to come from nonliving material, which is basically what you have to believe if you negate Intelligent Design. Nor do I understand what it means for consciousness coming from unconsciousness. Makes no sense.

I do not expect that you understand the mechanisms, nobody does, yet. I asked you if you understand what it means.

Credulity would be if they believed in the Resurrection based off of hearsay, but there weren't..they were basing their belief off of personal experience, which kinda seems foolish to call credulity.

Not necessarily. My Hindu friend personally witnessed an encounter with Ganesha, the god with an elephant head. Would that be foolish to call him credulous?

I recommended you...unless you are saying that you have less than average intelligence.

Bummer. He did not choose me as disciple, for obvious reasons

Apologies...I hail from Detroit Michigan, and at times things like that tend to slip out

No idea what you are talking about... Being Swedish and all.

Then we break even *shrugs*.

You wish

My reading skills? Well, lets see...Luke 21:11

11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

That is what my bible reads.....wow...tell you what, just keep up the bad work.

Alright. Luke 24:11. i am not very good with numbers, lol.

Yeah, people don't rise from the dead every day.

No. But Lazarus did, allegedly. And all those holy men did too. So, it was common place at that time. So common place that it can be skipped in some (good) news reports.

This has nothing to do with the historicity of the Resurrection. Call the disciples stupid, so what? They still witnessed the Resurrected Christ...that is what matters.

These are all nice stories, you know? The only "historicity" is in the Gospels, that for what we know they might have been written by some Greek person trying to make a buck entertaining some bored Roman Matronas with adventures from the colonies. A sort of ancient "Pirates of the Caribbean".

Look how close it is to the standard plot, so loved by the standard human. For three quarters of the story everything seems ok. Towards the end everything seems to turn for the worst. The stage is ready for the grand happy end.

Alas, their credibility does not exceed the one of a second class Hollywood movie.

Ok...and? So what? You just said it, they actually believed what they saw, so you admit that they saw something, right? Well then.

You don't understand. Why were they surprised and skeptical when the women announced the possible return of the master?

It does not compute.

So what? Satan and his followers turned against God despite knowing his credentials. So I guess knowing credentials doesn't mean to much huh?

You mean "TOO much"? That Detroit thing again, I guess..

That an angel rebels against an omnipotent being (knowing that he is omnipotent) does not add to the credibility of the story. It looks like God does not like to be surrounded by smart people, maybe in an effort to preserve Himself, who knows?

Adam and Eve are also intellectually suboptimal, in my opinion.

Talking of intelligent design, lol.

If God exists, what is so difficult to believe about talking clouds?

I guess it is not difficult to believe in anything, basically.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are ribs alive, too?

Kinda, sorta.

I do not expect that you understand the mechanisms, nobody does, yet. I asked you if you understand what it means.

I don't recall being asked that question.

Not necessarily. My Hindu friend personally witnessed an encounter with Ganesha, the god with an elephant head. Would that be foolish to call him credulous?

So what is the best explanation as to why your friend witnessed an encounter with Ganesha?

No idea what you are talking about... Being Swedish and all.

You are familiar with the United States of America, right? It is a country which has 50 states, and Michigan is one of those states...and Detroit is a city within that state.

Alright. Luke 24:11. i am not very good with numbers, lol.

Jesus foretelling his Resurrection didn't quite register with the disciples until after..you know...the Resurrection.

No. But Lazarus did, allegedly. And all those holy men did too. So, it was common place at that time. So common place that it can be skipped in some (good) news reports.

I said "people don't rise from the dead everyday", and you are talking about two seperate accounts which does not even remotely fit the "people rising from the dead everyday" thing that I mentioned.

These are all nice stories, you know?

Christians think they are nice stories too.

The only "historicity" is in the Gospels, that for what we know they might have been written by some Greek person trying to make a buck entertaining some bored Roman Matronas with adventures from the colonies. A sort of ancient "Pirates of the Caribbean".

Normally, when someone makes up a story to entertain people, they don't believe their own stories. So for example, the Pirates of the Caribbean, ask Ted Elliott if he believes Jack Sparrow was an actual human being in history. See the difference there?

Look how close it is to the standard plot, so loved by the standard human. For three quarters of the story everything seems ok. Towards the end everything seems to turn for the worst. The stage is ready for the grand happy end.

You have a point, and speaking of plot, lets keep in mind that in the end of Revelations, we all "live happily ever after" (most of us). So you are right, it is close to the standard plot.

Alas, their credibility does not exceed the one of a second class Hollywood movie.

Well, we have the story of Julius Ceasar too...getting stabbed to death by like 50 people. I can picture his death as a Hollywood movie...the last scene, he gets stabbed to death and slowly dies...and then the credits roll.

You don't understand. Why were they surprised and skeptical when the women announced the possible return of the master?

As I said, they were in a state of grief and weren't in the mental state to suddenly start recollecting all that Jesus had told them in his 3 years of ministry, which is why his prophecy of the Resurrection didn't dawn on him at that particular moment.

The narratives doesn't give the impression that Jesus sat everyone down and said "Look fellas, I am going to be handed over to be crucified, but do not worry, dont cry one tear, because you will see me three days later after I rise from the dead".

Now if Jesus had be that blunt with them, and they still didn't know or understand, then I can see your point. But when he mentioned it, it was vague...there was no depth to it, and the disciples may not have taken it to heart at the time.

You mean "TOO much"? That Detroit thing again, I guess..

Yeah I think so...you just never know when it when show its ugly face.

That an angel rebels against an omnipotent being (knowing that he is omnipotent) does not add to the credibility of the story.

What does credibility have to do with.....anything?

It looks like God does not like to be surrounded by smart people, maybe in an effort to preserve Himself, who knows?

Red herring. We are not talking about Jeopardy, we are talking about religion.

Adam and Eve are also intellectually suboptimal, in my opinion.

So?

I guess it is not difficult to believe in anything, basically.

I guess not, especially if you believe that inanimate matter suddenly "came to life" and begin thinking, speaking, eating, and reproducing.

 

[viole]

Kinda, sorta.
----etc

I think we have to agree to disagree for what concerns the "initial skepticism" of the disciples.

But I would like to address another point you made.

You seem to say: "If we believe in God, then it is not a problem to believe in the miracles of the Bible, e.g. talking clouds".

My question is: how do we believe in a particular God (e.g. the Christian God) and, as a consequence, have little problems to believe in His miracles?

We cannot possibly use the miracles contained in His Holy Book as evidence of His existence. We would first need to believe in them alone before we can draw conclusions about the author of such events, otherwise our belief system would not stand on its rational feet.

That is, we need to have independent means that enable belief in the Christian God, first.

What are they?

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

No idea what you are talking about... Being Swedish and all.

Was that a joke about us dumb Americans confusing Swiss and Swedish?

It's not our fault if those dumb Europeans created two words using so many of the same letters.

If you really are Swedish and it wasn't a joke, here's my embarrassed face:

 

[viole]

Was that a joke about us dumb Americans confusing Swiss and Swedish?

It's not our fault if those dumb Europeans created two words using so many of the same letters.

If you really are Swedish and it wasn't a joke, here's my embarrassed face:

I am actually both, Swede and Swiss. Originally Swede, turned Swiss recently.

So, that was not a joke (I did not even know you could confuse the two countries).

I am not from Swaziland, in case you might confuse it with Switzerland/Sweden, lol.

Ciao

- viole