|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: C'mon ringo. Different authors, in a different era, in an evolving culture but we are supposed to understand the Bible as one cohesive book. I can understand at least the POV of an inerrantist who sees God as the author but if you accept that the authors are human then your view is ridiculous.
Of course you can reconcile them - just like you can reconcile a Hitler who ordered genocide with a Hitler who loved his dog. The God of the Bible has both natures.ringo writes: Jesus does correct things from the OT but also we can see an evolving understanding of God's nature withi the OT itself. I went through that previously and you just keep asking the same questions. The fact that you don't accept my answers is immaterial.
Only if you look at the New Testament as a "correction" of the Old Testament. There's no justification for doing that. ringo writes: That is your belief. It is also consistent with the arguments that I've heard in numerous debates. I'm not going through it all again, but the historical argument for resurrection is far stronger than the argument against it. Of course, if you start from the view point that it couldn't possibly have happened then anything else is more probable.
Resurrections don't happen. ringo writes: It must be nice to know what and how others think.
What you currently believe is truth IS wishful thinking.ringo writes: This Christian doesn't.
And the stories about Jesus' life, death and resurrection are what some other scribe attributed to God for whatever reason. There is no clear demarcation between Old and New Testaments. Christians just arbitrarily start the New at Jesus' birth. ringo writes: The are few Christians I know that believe in a literal 6 day creation, a talking snake or a literal world wide flood. However, it seems that you as an atheist, (I'm assuming that), are the final word on how a Christian should understand the Bible. On the contrary, I keep insisting that the only way to understand the Bible is to accept what it says. YOU are the one who insists that we project 21st century sensibilities on it and decide that the New Testament is "right' while the Old Testament is "wrong".He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: Different authors, in a different era, in an evolving culture but we are supposed to understand the Bible as one cohesive book.ringo writes: Well actually neither. The "are" was supposed to be "aren't". Sorry.
It isn't clear whether that's your opinion or you're mocking mine. ringo writes: As I pointed out to Percy every religion consistently holds the Golden Rule as part of their doctrine as I wanted to show that there is commonality among religions. Percy quite rightly pointed out that the same is true within secular institutions. I think that we can conclude then that this is something that is a universal fundamental attribute that we are all called to. Is it ridiculous that Hitler ordered genocide and also loved his dog? Why can't somebody have two wildly contradictory natures? Why would you accept one and deny the other? You c'mon. Ergo, if there is a god then we should be able to safely assume that this is an attribute of that deity, and that we can be confident that this generic deity would not order a genocide or public stoning for that matter.
ringo writes: You obviously know how some Christians think. You seem to insist that Christians have to understand the Bible the way that Faith and ICANT do. I'm a Christian and I understand it as a library of books by authors with their various sources of material, their biases, their own cultures, their neighbouring cultures etc. I do believe that there is a true understanding of God written into the overall narrative within the Bible, and that He metaphorically speaks to us through those Scriptures. I'll tell the story again: I was practically born in church. I could quote scriptures before I could read them. In the first third or so of my life I spent more time in church than most people do in a lifetime. So yes, I think I do have a grasp on how Christians think. You obviously have a grasp on how some Christians think, but as you know within Christianity there are a wide variety of views, and just maybe you don't know how all of us think. I certainly don't. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
ringo writes: I apologize for answering a comment in a post to Phat. But you ignore the obvious answer:1. Resurrections don't happen. How do you know that? I have read the arguments against resurrection on this site, but also in the works of scholars such as Borg, Crossan and others. It all comes down to your statement that I quoted. The starting point for every argument I've encountered is that. The resurrection story is false because we know it is impossible. I agree that our scientific understanding of things dictates that the resurrection couldn't possibly have happened. However, that assumes that scientific law as we understand it is immutable. Firstly we can easily show that scientific laws that we believe to be immutable have turned out to be wrong, and require what we believe to be adjusted. Who knows where that will go in the future. QM certainly shows us that things we thought were absolutes aren't. Also, I have pointed out previously that the universe and our lives exist. Now you can believe that this is the case simply as a result of nothing but blind chance over and over again, with interconnecting blind processes. I find that a way to much of a stress. I contend that there is one overarching process or agency and that the agency is intelligent. or some form of deity Once I have accepted that then I think it is reasonable to subjectively conclude that ultimately there is purpose. Therefore I reject the deistic idea of a deity that brought us into existence and immediately lost interest. If I am correct that this deity would have an ongoing interest, then it follows that in some way this deity influences the creation. As I've said in other posts the concept of the Golden Rule seems to be ubiquitous. It is as near as I can see in all religions and also in secular society. Certainly we go against the rule all the time but no matter how deep down we push it we know that it is there. From that I deduce that the Golden Rule is the best guide that we have as to the nature of the deity. I go further and suggest that the Golden Rule is the part of us that is truly of the deity. As a Christian I see it as the still small voice of His Spirit reaching out to us. All of this is of course subjective, but if I am correct and this deity is responsible for our existence then I see no reason to reject the possibility that he/she/it could reach into time and interfere physically. If we accept then, as I do, the possibility of this happening then we are in a position to ask why resurrection. Firstly, it seems reasonable to have a human that perfectly embodies the humanness we are called to, to have that message vindicated and confirmed. Secondly, we all seem to have a desire to leave a mark on the world one way or another. We want to have purpose. We write obituaries so our loved ones will be remembered. We take pictures, carve our initials into things, we take pictures, we record ourselves, we have Remembrance days etc. Also of course we have children where we leave our genetic imprint on the world, and in general we are interested in our ancestors representing our own genetic history. Resurrection then is God saying to us that our lives and all life ultimately matters. That death is not the final answer and that our lives do have an ultimate meaning and purpose. If I am correct in all of that, then the possibility of Jesus' resurrection can't be dismissed. If I use this as a starting point, rather that it didn't happen because it is scientifically impossible, then I contend that the actual resurrection of Jesus makes far more sense of the Gospel accounts than any other alternative understanding. I realize that the majority of you will reject all this as fairy tales, wishful thinking and all of the other pejorative terms that you use, but I thought that I'd use this post to explain my rationale for what I believe. Edited by GDR, : wrote stress instead of stretch for some unknown reason Edited by GDR, : also noticed that I had Phat instead of ringo in the quote boxHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Sorry. I didn’t have any time to devote to EvC the last couple of days. I thought that I’d just reply to these posts.
ringo writes: Of course there is no scientific evidence as both of us well know. There is no scientific evidence for the vast majority of historical events except for the written evidence. Certainly some historical events are more fully documented than others. Nope. Nobody has suggested that science is immutable. As soon as you can produce scientific evidence that resurrection is possible, we can start to examine the evidence for resurrection of Jesus. Until then, resurrection is just as impossible as walking across the Pacific Ocean or flapping your arms to the moon.The resurrection is recorded as historical. The resurrection requires that the laws of science as we currently know them have to be suspended. Science cannot be used to repudiate or confirm resurrection. It does require faith that the Gospel accounts are essentially accurate. Phat writes: Resurrection can be symbolic.Phat writes: Stop thinking of the resurrection as a necessary objective fact and start looking at it as a metaphorical ideal.ringo writes: Tell it to GDR.Tangle writes:
Resurrection certainly works as a metaphor for all sorts of things. It works in our lives for anything from a spiritual awakening to overcoming an addiction. However, I agree with Tangle that without the resurrection being historical Christianity is a false religion. It is at best a positive social model, that is assuming that one focuses on the love thy neighbour part. However, that is simply cultural Christianity, although IMHO, it is actually closer to secular humanism. But you've changed the point, which was that if the resurrection is not historical, then Christianity fails as a hypothesis.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: The resurrection is recorded as historical.ringo writes: Sure, only in the Bible, but the Bible isn't just the testimony of one individual. As the Gospels are compilations of material there are numerous people testifying to the resurrection. In addition there are the Epistles with further testimony to the a historical resurrection.
Where? Outside the Bible? GDR writes: he resurrection requires that the laws of science as we currently know them have to be suspended. Science cannot be used to repudiate or confirm resurrection.ringo writes: Actually that isn't correct. The resurrection is only supported by the accounts written about the event. The resurrection would not have left any lasting physical evidence. The flood can very easily, (don't tell Faith this), be repudiated by science because if it had occurred it would have left physical evidence. The same can be said for the Flood.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
percy writes: Of course it can be had both ways. I believe by faith that the resurrection is an historical event.
You can't it both ways, both historical and faith driven. The resurrection is a core religious belief of Christianity, not history. percy writes: The Gospels say that you are wrong.
As you said, this is what you believe on faith. It isn't reality. The laws of science were never suspended. Nothing violating the laws of science has ever been shown to happen. Percy writes: So what? One can be right and the others wrong, they can all be right or they can all be wrong. One thing they do agree on and that is that there is a deity.
Well, yes, of course, in the same way that science can't be used to repudiate or confirm Harry Potter. There's no evidence to confirm or repudiate, plus it violates known laws of science, plus it's obviously religious which places it in the same grabbag of fantastical claims with other religions. Percy writes: If you are talking about miracles, I have never claimed that they are scientific but that has nothing to do as to whether or not they are factual or historic.
ou can have a favorite religion. Yours happens to be Christianity, others Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judasim or any of a number of others. All their beliefs are based upon faith. None of these religions are historical or factual or scientific when it comes to things like resurrections. Percy writes: I'm not trying to prove anything. I do have objective evidence in the physical writings in the Gospels, I do however by faith form a subjective view as to their veracity. You just finished saying that the resurrection being historical has to be accepted on faith, which means you have no objective evidence that the resurrection is historical. Objectively Christianity is a false religion (so are all the others) - it can only be accepted on faith, which is as it should be. All those who march off to objectively prove their religion are on a fool's errand.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: Of course it is historical evidence. What you are talking about is its reliability.
A bigger pile of unreliable evidence doesn't make it more reliable. And of course each source was compiled by individuals with their own agenda and the canon was compiled by people with an agenda. I'd say that that adds up to a lot less than "historical evidence". ringo writes: I have agreed that if the resurrection is historical then it happened outside of the laws of known science. Your point is that the laws of science are immutable and as a result resurrection is impossible. That isn't the only way that science repudiates the resurrection. As far as science is concerned, the resurrection is as impossible as the Flood, as impossible as Jesus flying up to heaven by flapping His arms.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: There is evidence left behind. The NT. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. It only happened once. The only evidence is what we have written. All we have are written accounts and subjectively we can accept or reject the accounts. You're talking nonsense. You can believe by faith that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, but that doesn't turn it into a historical event. Faith is the last resort of those with no evidence. Actual historical events leave evidence behind. This shouldn't have to be explained. As I said to ringo, the real argument is not the fact that the Gospels are evidence but how reliable we consider the evidence.
Percy writes: We both keep repeating what we have already said. The Gospels are evidence and I accept the veracity of the accounts of the resurrection by faith.
So what? The gospels (lowercase) are something you accept on faith, not evidence. Percy writes: Science provides no support. However the fact that the early church rose in circumstances that would strongly dictate against it without the resurrection, is historical evidence.
What is wrong is making false claims that evidence-based fields like history and science provide any support for faith-based ideas. Percy writes: Why keep using the word "prove". I have stated categorically several times that there is no proof, and that it can't be proven. I don't think I can be any clearer.
Sure you are. You're trying to prove the gospels historical, but finding it a tough go for lack of evidence. Percy writes: I agree. However we do objectively know that the Gospels exist. Two of them clearly state that they were compiled in order to provide an account of the facts. We know that objectively. We subjectively form our own conclusions about their veracity and by faith, not knowledge, we accept our conclusions. The gospels (lowercase) contain no objective evidence for their religious claims.Cheers He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
NosyNed writes: You're right of course. I think though in comparing the texts of various religions I suggest that it is better to start with what they agree about. I said to Percy that they all have a deity and Percy correctly pointed out that some have multiple deities. I would add of course that Buddhism isn't really theistic but it doesn't reject theism either. They disagree so they can not be all right. As I said earlier they all, with again the possible exception of Buddhism, accept a divine power and they all include the "Golden Rule'. Those are fundamental theistic beliefs and are even held in common with secular beliefs. I would add though, that secular acceptance of the Golden Rule arose from the period when the whole world was theistic. Also I would say that as a Christian I should be open to hearing what people of other faiths have to say, and even pay attention to the incessant rantings of the atheistic crowd. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: First off I firmly believe that Jesus was dead. I don't believe that He came back to life as we know it. I believe that the resurrected Jesus was experienced in a body that bridged our universe and God's universe. I don't want to speak for Ringo, but I think our views are fairly similar. That the resurrection (assuming you believe Jesus was really dead for three days and then came back to life, and not that he wasn't really dead but the apostles just thought he was) violates science just makes it more clear that it is religion, whose strong tendency toward fantastical claims we understand very well. You'd like to believe that the nature of religion doesn't hold for the religion that you prefer, that unlike other religions Christianity's claims are actually true, nay, even historical. That you have to pick among the claims for what you think true and what you think not belies this. I haven't commented on the claims of other religions and I have already stated that there are things that are consistent. If we read the first part of the Book of Buddha we find essentially the same social message proclaimed by Jesus. I am quite prepared to accept that it was a revelation from God. I have put a lot of time into understanding the concept of resurrection in its historical Jewish context. I haven't put that same time into other religious claims so I won't offer an opinion one way or the other. The claims of the miraculous in other religions, whether historical or not, has nothing to do with the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes:
I did not say as a ghost. The resurrected Jesus was physical. He ate fish and could be touched. However, He also was different in a variety of ways. The message is that it was a renewed physicality. Well, that's new. At lease to me.Again, this looks and smells a lot like one of Faith's made-up processes when the evidence against her flud gets too deep. Now you can escape the impediment reality puts on the viability of resurrection by claiming Jesus was not resurrected as a human but as a ghost. To go back we have to remember that Jesus was a Jew immersed in Jewish culture. If the Jews wanted to be forgiven their misdoings they went to the Temple, gave sacrifices and could be forgiven. The Temple, and particularly the Holy of Holies was God’s place on Earth. It was the point in our space and time that God resided. It was where God’s world connected or intersected with our world. That was the Jewish belief. Jesus came along as a counter-Temple movement. He simply forgave sin and made statements that He desired mercy and not sacrifice. He is saying that the place where God’s world, (I have just updated it a bit by using universe instead of world), connected or intersected or world or universe was in Him, and that with the establishment of the Kingdom that the point of intersection between God’s universe and our own is in the hearts and minds of those that love the message of love of God as embodied by Jesus. Ultimately then the message is that Jesus was the first born of the new creation or the renewal of all things. Paul puts it this way in Ephesians 1. quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. It only happened once. The only evidence is what we have written. All we have are written accounts and subjectively we can accept or reject the accounts.Percy writes: First you argued that there was evidence left behind, and now you're arguing that such events left no evidence behind, including actual historical events like Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. You can't even keep your arguments consistent. You're just saying whatever's expedient that pops into your head. Anyway, based upon your second argument, the lack of evidence, we agree that events with no evidence should be questioned. Historians, many of them and some of them contemporary, wrote of Caesar, and Caesar wrote a great deal himself about his life and military campaigns. There are multiple independent sources for the history of Rome, which is not true of the gospels. About the crossing of the Rubicon, how did Caesar reach Rome if he didn't cross it? If he remained on the other side of the Rubicon, how did he enter Rome with his legion, chase Pompey toward Spain, become dictator, and conduct all his subsequent campaigns. Please read what I wrote. I did not say that there is no evidence left behind. I simply said that the evidence is contained in written accounts. Historical events usually don't leave physical evidence behind. Yes, there is written evidence of Caesar's crossing the Rubicon. You then go on to argue that the evidence for the crossing is stronger as there are independent sources confirming it. What you are in essence saying is that the evidence for the crossing is stronger than the evidence for the resurrection. I'll take that as true, and will even add that the crossing requires less evidence as there is nothing in that that calls for the suspension of scientific laws. However, regardless in saying what you said you are saying that the Gospels (I capitalize it out of respect), are evidence, but just very weak evidence.
Percy writes: I'm not sure why you are asking this but the whole NT exists because of the resurrection. Here is one account. If the gospels (lowercase) are evidence, cite some specific piece of gospel evidence so that we may discuss it.quote: I know that you will reject this account on numerous grounds. However it does show that the compiler of the Gospel is confirming Jesus' resurrection.
GDR writes: However the fact that the early church rose in circumstances that would strongly dictate against it without the resurrection, is historical evidence.Percy writes: I have gone into the details before and they are refuted. You obviously totally reject my beliefs largely based on your belief that science dictates that the resurrection can't possibly be historical. Fair enough. I believe that there is reality beyond the world of science. It becomes a matter of belief and if it is considered as an impossibility in the first place there isn't a lot of point in trying to present the case all over again. I've done that numerous times over the years. I don't expect to convince anyone that isn't already convinced. It is just an attempt to put my position out there.
You keep repeating this without addressing the rebuttals. In the end you just ignore the rebuttals and say stuff like, "I stand by what I said," which is just nolo contendere. Percy writes: I believe that the resurrection is historical. I don't have conclusive evidence that I am correct. However, I have faith that I am correct, and with that faith I understand Jesus' life and message to be representative of a God of love, and then work out what that means to my life and how I live it.
Then why do you keep arguing for the historicity of the gospels if it's merely something you accept on faith? Percy writes: No, the content is objective evidence but we subjectively come to a conclusion about their veracity. If we come to the conclusion that the resurrection is historical we have varying degrees of faith in our conclusion. So by your own admission the objective existence of the gospels is not objective evidence of their content, which must be accepted on faith. History is not accepted on faith. The gospels are not history. Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote. It was originally attributed to Percy but was actually from GDR.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: I have put a lot of time into understanding the concept of resurrection in its historical Jewish context.Percy writes: ....because I've covered it in several earlier threads. It involves an understanding of what resurrection meant to the Jewish culture and in the OT. There were numerous other messianic movements that ended with the leaders being put to death, whereas this movement did not end. It is the way the accounts are written. It treats the leaders in a derogatory fashion, it has women as the first people to meet the resurrected Jesus, it is clear that the writers of the Gospels believed in the resurrection and there is, in spite of what you and others have written, no motivation for compiling these accounts. Two questions: 1) Why do you mention this but then say nothing about it? 2) How is this rebuttal to the fact that miracles are one of the identifying characteristics of religion? Some not all religions have miracles which has nothing to say about whether any or all of them are true. If you believe as I understand you do that even if there is a deity, this deity does not in any way intervene in our world, then obviously the miraculous is not possible and there are only natural explanations for occurrences. If however you are wrong and there is a theistic deity then the miraculous is not only possible but likely, and so we can judge any accounts on their own merits.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: OK, but once again there were 66 books written and so they are not all to be evaluated in the same way. Also, the Gospels were compilations and 2 of them claim to be accurate. The Bible is evidence that the Bible was written. We can not conclude from that evidence that anything in the Bible is true. However, as you say that does not mean that they have to be accepted as true.
GDR writes: I have agreed that if the resurrection is historical then it happened outside of the laws of known science. Your point is that the laws of science are immutable and as a result resurrection is impossible.ringo writes: Both statements say the same thing. If we start from the POV that the resurrection is impossible then obviously we will reject the idea of it being historical. If however we are theistic, we can accept the possibilty that the resurrection is historical. Even then though we can still only subjectively determine whether or not we believe it happened. You're saying it backwards. If something is possible, we can determine whether or not it happened.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: I don't believe that He came back to life as we know it. I believe that the resurrected Jesus was experienced in a body that bridged our universe and God's universe.ringo writes: I just wrote about this recently. It was a physical body but different. He could be touched and He ate food. However it was a body that moved between and bridged God's universe and our own. It was a body no longer subject to entropy. That isn't what resurrection means. You've been wasting everybody's time by claiming that you believe in the resurrection.If He came back in a different spooky body, the wounds that He showed off were counterfeit and His whole "proof" that He was alive was a lie. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024