Amos

</strong>

Man is perfect and only in our humanity are we not perfect. Man is created in the image of God and therefore God while our humanity is just an imaginary condition of being wherein we think we know who we are. </strong>

To get into heaven the ego must be crucified or raptured. When the ego is crucified that which remains is in heaven. </strong>

God is a proven fact for those who are God. The rest just extract theorems from God to prove their unbelief (science extrapolates from omniscience). Wrong. You can only have faith in something about which you have incomplete knoweledge or you would have no knowledge thereof.

1) God does exist or else we could not be (we are the continuity of God).

2) The Bible is misleading and should not be read to seek salvation.

3)Afterlife is eternal life. Eternal life is real and temporal life is an illusion. We have temporal life in our ego identity and eternal life in our true identity (as God).

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Sr. Zonules

If I (or no one else for that matter) shant read the bible for salvation, then where else do I find a way into heaven?

If I had ABSOLUTE proof that god exists, i.e. if I knew the true nature of God, then I cannot have faith in him, because he is known completely to me.

I also want to know why you think that ego, which i believe to be one of the primary aspects of "man qua man," that is, the nature of man, is not a good thing. It is because of the power of man, not God, that we have technology, medicine, stability and power. If man were to just sit around and wait for God on everything, the world would be a savage place. Man made rockets to go to the moon. Man made artificial hearts and incubators to save themselves from disease and death. Today we are on the verge of science and medicine. With new genome research, we will finally be able to know exactly how man works, and to improve upon him. Truly, if we are in God's image, then we, too are creators and destroyers, and not even God can take that away from man. The sears tower was not erected because a bunch of catholics (notice the LOWER CASE!!!) sat around and prayed until it came. Man extracted metals and other resources from the ground, refined it, and using machine, also build ina similar fashion, made one of the tallest buildings today.

Even if God exists, it is impossilbe to completely know the nature of him. I am not going to waste my life trying to find out, or waste my life being an altruist.

Sr. Zonules

When browsing, I also found a very insightful and well-written reply in the "Why is creationism rife in USA? (Page 5)" thread in the Evolution/Creation section: (A Quote from Starboy - thanks)

Powerfull Voices

Mr.Zonules

The translation thing is just one of the examples of why it is OK (and quite necessary) to think of the Bible as NOT INFALLABLE. i.e. if you believe that man is not perfect (not God) then you think that all of men's work is also not perfect. The Bible is quite incomplete and just plain wrong, so don't base your life upon that.

I believe all but one are/were not perfect. This is His work and that of the Holy Spirit. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God". The Bible is not simply a work of man.
I would like an example of your last statement.

About getting into heaven, all I have to do is to have FAITH in GOD.

No, you have faith in a god as is. You must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as I wrote before you must receive the gift that was His scorn.

Beoran,

I was not really referring to the evil done in the name of religion. Hoever, your metaphor is quite wrong. What if I knew you were going to commit a murder and I gave you my gun? That is the metaphor more appliable to the crusades and other atrocities that chistianity backed and sponsored. But I digres, as this was not my point.

Where did you get the gun?
My point was about dogmatization. As a religion grow, and becomes more organised, it's followers will start to create a "canon" of works which are considered "orthodox". The believers will structure themselves in some kind of hierarchy. The ideas of the belief will be laid fast into absolute dogmas, devience from which is considered foolishness and even herecy. This dogmatisation usually becomes so powerful that it afflicts education and ultimately limits all thinkers to orthodox .

Everything you just wrote may be true but how does it discredit Jesus Christ?

Only when through time and external influences the dogma starts to crumble, the advance of civillisaton can start anew. For chistianity, the time thus lost in stagfnation was 1000 years.

Science does not discredit Christianity, if anything it strengthens it (i.e. the world began to exist). Only the Theory of Evolution which is almost certainly your dogma, presupposed and used as a basic belief "discredits" Christianity.

Mageth

Evil has been done in the name of Christ who denies that but if I put on you favorite suit and went out and murdered someone would you be guilty of that murder?

Do you believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin? If you do, then you believe that we all inherit the guilt of our distant ancestor Adam, don't you?

Amos

</strong>

Salvation is a gift from God and bible reading will only be a hindrance to this. Read Jn.5:39-40 where it clearly states that those who search the scriptures think they find salvation yet they fail to receive the same. Moreover, you
cannot find salvation because the very you that is searching for salvation must be crucified. Hence, the mystery of salvation. </strong>

True, only knowledge frees. Faith is always accompanied by doubt and so neither faith nor doubt be be allowed in heaven. This is why Peter (the faither) was the twin of Thomas (the doubter) and when Thomas was convinced Peter was defrocked (no cloak of faith on their next fishing trip). </strong>

Our ego is a good thing and is needed to further the kingdom of God. Notice that in Gen.1 he woman of the TOL saw that the TOK (tree of knowledge) was good for food, wisdom and beauty. It is a good thing that humans are banned from Eden so they can accumilate knowledge and do the science to prove the omniscience of God. Remember here that man is God and even if not many people come to this realization they still further the kingdom of God. The sad part here is that most will die and never really enjoy the fruits of their labor in eternity . . . which is heaven on earth.

The ego is good but the ego is better when it has been placed subservient to our intuition. Well you can't be an altruist because that would remove the meaning of altruism. To know God all you need to do is know yourself which actually is the mandate of religion and this will make lower case catholics into capital C Catholics.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Keith Russell

Amos:

Check your irony meter; it must be malfunctioning. Surely, it would have chirped loudly as you typed this:

"Salvation is a gift from God and bible reading will only be a hindrance to this. Read Jn.5:39-40 where it clearly states that those who search the scriptures think they find salvation yet they fail to receive the same."

So, we should read the Bible, in order to learn that the Bible is not a guide for salvation? But, if the Bible is wrong, then when it says that it is not a guide for salvation, maybe it is a guide for salvation, after all...

Silliness. Utter silliness.

Keith.

Amos

Oh but religious fundamentalism has always been the enemy of salvation. The bible may be read for confirmation but should never become the scource of inspiration and if it is used to find salvation you will be handed a scorpion instead of a fish.

Sr. Zonules

You do know that if you capitalise catholic (i.e. "universal," inthis case referring to christianity,) you get Catholic, which is Short for Roman Catholic, a particular (and quite terrible) sect of Christianity. All christians, bishops, new-age, Lutherans, small kids, they are all catholic, but not all of them are Catholic.

Heraclitus Nietzsche

Powerfull Voices-
Hello again! Your last post was probably one of your best. You provided some very thoughtful responses. Like you, I understand how these posts can get longer and longer as new topics are brought up. This one is no exception...

I've heard many theories about how Jesus's followers might have stole his body so no one could find it. However, I don't think that is an adequate response against your argument because it doesn't alleviate mere speculation. I feel a better argument to be this: At the time Jesus was entombed, only the disciples believed Jesus had risen. It was only until the Gospels were written and circulated that the resurrection became more widespread. This was several years later. By that time, there was no recognizable body for the Pharisees (or Romans for that matter) to provide. Jesus had decomposed as all human beings will do after physical death. The producing of unrecognizable bones (even if they were authentically Jesus's) would not have crushed the faith.

This would mean after we die, our next moment of consciousness would be when we are resurrected right? But if we are never resurrected, our consciousness is indeed at an end.

I think the reason why Christianity's faith keeps continuing throughout the ages is because every great thing that is supposed to happen is out of human reach (after you physically die, and whenever Jesus decides to make his "second-coming"). If nothing happens when you die (no afterlife of heaven and hell), the individual's consciousness has ended so no "truth" about it is discovered. Also, Jesus can keep his followers waiting for the rest of their lives (and their children's) without ever coming. Each new Christian generation is convinced Jesus will come during their lifetimes. You gotta admit, 2000 years is quite a long time to wait. I could think of several times throughout history that Jesus would have had a good reason to come. What could possibly be holding him up?

A true first-hand unbiased account of Jesus's resurrection is nowhere to be found. The Gospels say (conveniently without giving specifics) Jesus visited many more people than just his living disciples. He even supposedly did more works (miracles?). I'm suspicious that no non-biased people have ever given accounts of seeing him after he was killed. That is a very good reason to doubt he ever truly made any post-mortum appearances. Did Jesus only visit ones that believed in him? What was the point of doing that? Even if he didn't visit him they would have thought he was alive and well somewhere (in heaven at the right-hand of God the Father?). All Christians believe he's there now, right?

The only reason I haven't given you to doubt is your desire to have Jesus's second-coming take place. I can tell you why I don't think it will happen; why I don't think it could happen, but that won't stop you from wanting it to happen. This makes me ask: Why do you want it to happen?

My point about Christians being mentally ill was because they want to believe in things and events that should be against their natural better judgment (like wanting to die for example). I know you don't agree with me on that, but how can the effects of prayer be proven? What if a doctor had accidentally performed a breakthrough surgery that really was the cause of the loved-one's full recovery, but he was so enthralled about prayer to be true, that he didn't perform it again on his next patient (instead, he prayed) and his next patient died? Belief in prayer can obstruct real cures from going unheeded. Thankfully, the majority of medical doctors don't just rely on prayer to heal their patients!

I don't doubt that many people feel better when they become converted. That is the draw of it (" religion is opium for the masses" Orwell said?). The power of atheistic positive thinking also does the same thing and is more statistically more productive than religious conversion (I don't rely to heavily on statistics anyway because they are not without their bias). So if we go the statistical route (as is commonly used for Christian arguments), why not go with atheistic Psychology (purely scientific), or Eastern holistic therapy and meditation as a means improve health, grades, and well-being?
I think it's because of the God factor - Christianity offers the added draw of excluding the believer over all those who are deemed "worldly" and adds the possibility that all who are not like you will be everlastingly tortured. Therefore, with theism it seems, Health, good grades, and well-being are not good enough!

On a conscious level, you may be right. But, the influence of Christianity has a way of changing one's values to more easily accept it. Have you ever asked yourself why you want to be a Christian? I can't see any other reason than that Christians want more self-empowerment (if you have another please let me know. Simply saying: Because Jesus is real won't cut it). This need for self-empowerment by means of delusion, tells me that Christians consider themselves powerless without any true means to gain power, thus having to resort to life-after-death and such. It's a lot like the occult - people believe in Magick to do what they are unable to do and rely on delusional thought to get the job done. What else is prayer if not a Magick ritual?

Yes, in the minds of evolving "monkeys". I know you don't believe in Evolution, but your saying "it was always there" doesn't have to mean that God instilled it in the first man as an unchangable trait for humanity

This is an awesome observation on your part. Kudos! My belief is that mankind is always changing (as is the universe). This is why there is always continual interpretations and re-interpretations of knowledge. This is also the reason why I enjoy philosophy so much. And this is also why I don't believe the Bible's message is "eternal". As mankind changes, the interpretations change. I admit, with Christianity, the focal point will be tied to the Jesus icon, but how do we continually relate to him? This changes a great deal. Therefore, all the important aspects change.

Yes, there is the central figure of Jesus as the focal icon. But our relationship to this central diety; how we use the diety changes with mankind. I personally think Christianity instills corrupt values in mankind (like the aforementioned willingness to belief delusion for power attainment). Christian values, taken to absurd lengths, also instill greed (what is desire for heaven if not greed - streets of pure gold?); sadism (hell as a place for those we feel encroach upon our power - wealthy men, sexy women - all will burn); suicide (this life is a means to an end, not an end in itself- everything about your life is sacrificed for death); masochism (born in "sin" on the road to hell if Jesus doesn't "save" us - and "floggers"), and the spreading of hate (intolerance for other's views- admittedly this has improved, but only because the law stepped in & Christians are reminded how they should love their neighbor - heck, didn't Jesus say we even should "love our enemies"?- who among Christians really does this?).

Of course it does. Evolution is change. It isn't "necessary", it's reality. Theism always seeks to confuse the descriptive with the prescriptive.

The only thing the same is the use people have for a diety: wanting to attain self-empowerment, but having no other means of getting it. That is why Christianity has been so frequently likened to a disease- if others use the same delusional Christian techniques to get their power, then no-one will have any real power. That is how it spreads.

My own definition of an atheist is: having no use for a God, therefore not believing in that which has no personal use. There's so much needless arguing going around about how to prove or disprove God's existence. It always boils down to want. I do not want what I can't use (and there is only one human use for God isn't there?). God is defined as only use.

I've clearly detailed the psychology behind prayer. But it's all like that. How can you tell God is giving you anything? A sense of well-being can be achieved on many things, not just God. Theists believe they're getting something out of God because they want to believe they are; because what other choice do they have? They either get nothing, or rationalize they are getting something (like answer to prayer). Atheists just strive for the getting of something, not bothering with all the rationalization. That is why so many scientists are atheists. Sure, there are some scientists that call themselves theists, but religious rationalization is allowed no room in scientific proofs. Perhaps the religious scientists just say they're religious because they want some security in the afterlife (they've found a use for it in that one unscientific realm). Meanwhile, their scientific work (method) is no different than the atheist scientists.

I think a person declares themself an "agnostic" because of all the theist/athiest debates that are going on: Due to the inability for logical reasoning to prove or disprove God, they feel that agnosticism is the only realistic default belief.
Atheism is "self-defeating"? I'd like to hear your line of reasoning behind that statement. I don't think the determination of "use for God" is self-defeating at all. Atheists have no use for God (no use for rationalization of one's own influence in the world), while theists have a use for God (attainment of power by any means possible- for them, only delusion is productive).

If God did create me (don't tell my parents I said that), then that's just it: he created me and now he has to live with his creation.

Pascal's wager says spending one's life in preparation as a means to a great reward is worth it because of the huge payoff. In my opinion, Blaise Pascal was a great writer & thinker, but I think his "Wager" is his greatest error and embarrassment (of course it comes from notes, not a finished work, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt by saying he might have omitted it in a final draft). First, the "payoff" of a blissful afterlife is speculative, so there is no sure reward (like in regular "worldly" gambling). Second, the means to such a payoff would be in living a life according to God's will. This is the greatest error! What is God's Will? Different Gods have different wills, so which one (God or will) is right? If I tell you I'm God, do you apply Pascal's Wager and worship me in hopes of a great payoff? If you say no, then the reason why you said no defeats the Wager. You value not worshipping me as God. That's simply what the atheists are doing. The reason why you don't worship me according to Pascal's Wager logic is the same logic as why atheists don't worship your God. It is simply not an appealing option. Christians think Pascal's Wager is the best thing for apologetics since sliced bread, but that's because 1) they already believe the reference point (the Christian God), and 2) they already believe the payoff. I personally try to look at the logic of an argument, and Pascal's Wager is the largest blemish on the face of apologetics. If you want an example of "self-defeating", Pascal's Wager is it.
You find "joy and purpose" in the Christian faith. I say the Christian faith wastes the lives of its followers because of the assumption that our human lives are a mere means to an end instead of an end in itself. There is no guarantee that you are building up any real equity to purchase a blissful afterlife other than just your hope (i.e. "want") for it to be as such. Christians believe they can't "achieve" anything in this life, so it's only natural for them to find their achievements in an afterlife. It's that belief that you can't achieve anything (as an end in itself) in this life that I have such big issues with. How can we let anyone (i.e. "priests") tell us we can never achieve anything in this life? The priests are getting something in this life - money, attention, and power from their congregations! I'm having none of it!

It isn't my intention for you to take personally anything I say against religion or Christianity.
You're right, I should have said something more like: "A Christian is throwing their life away" rather than "You are throwing your life away". My critique is on the psychology of Christianity, to which you claim to be a part of. My saying of "You" means "A Christian". I meant no personal offense. But you have adopted the Christian psychology have you not? I don't think you or any other Christians are bad people. I've never felt that. I simply think they have adopted corrupting values, one of which is the hatred of their own lives (an important Christian criteria according to Jesus in the Gospels). A Christian may not feel as if he consciously hates his life, but the reason why Christianity seems so "fulfilling" is because it hides a self-hatred that, if it wasn't there before, is there now because of Christian values. No one is born a Christian, the values have been imposed by the environment (society) that holds them. Maybe that's a hidden draw to "congregate together" (attend church)- as a reinforcement of commonly held values. Misery always loves company. "But Christians are so happy" you might say. But why? Because they have found a way to hide their misery. It's all alot like alcoholism if you ask me. Loving Jesus is "intoxicating" is it not?

I was referring to the time it saves typing one's ideas into a public posting board rather than just personal emails. My aim is not to convert you personally, nor is it to "put on a show" (I'll leave that to the theistic apologists). I would like to convert the whole world. I think the world would be a better place if religion was eradicated from mankind. Not forgotten, but overcome. A large part of this possibility relies upon awareness of what religion actually does to an individual and society. Christians deny this awareness because it would destroy the illusion and lessen the personal power they attain by holding to such illusions.

So it is truth you are after? As a Christian, your search should have ended now. Why continue searching? I'll answer my own question here: because mankind constantly changes (evolves). Our possessions are never enough. Christians may feel that heaven and being so close to God and Jesus for eternity is enough, but their view of any afterlife is solely in the perspective of this life (the grass is always greener...). If heaven allowed its inhabitants any semblance of humanity, heaven would have to keep re-inventing itself just in order to keep everyone interested!

The illusion is that the Christian apologists are somehow proving God exists (through logical reasoning). That's an impossibility. If you want, I'm quite able to refute every single one of the theist arguments (both classic and modern presuppositionalism) because I know the psychology behind them all. It would take up some space here, so maybe you (or I) can start another thread in the "proofs of God" boards for each one. I'm not sure what other examples you would need except that God can't be proven by logical means because God is defined as being separate from the physical universe (transcending it). If you don't believe this, then you believe the physical universe IS God (which is just an effort to project your human consciousness {a face;a personality} into the non-rational universe (just like tripping over a chair means the chair somehow intended you to trip over it). We, as beings who have known only the physical universe (being totally within its confines) have no means to prove what exists outside the universe. The limits of logic and our human rational minds are limited by the physical universe, and so are any proofs we are capable of. Does this mean that it is possible for there to exist something like God outside of the universe. Sure, just like it's possible for there to exist anything outside of our comprehensional, observational limits. But, the possibility of a "forever unknown" is not reasonable justification for me to put a "face" on it (personify it) thereby finding a use for it, and believing it. How do we know whatever is outside our physical universe (if anything) has any semblence to a God at all? It could be purple baboons, so why not worship purple baboons? Answer- because there's no reason to do so.
The concept of God has earthly, humanistic traits, so it seems to be a figment of man's imagination (i.e. man knows he is limited - it is not hard to imagine the inverse- a being that is unlimited). But there's absolutely no means to substantiate a claim that God exists within the physical universe, other than as a figment of mankind's imagination. Since God was seemingly "hatched" within the universe, and the physical laws of our universe are probably not in existence outside of our universe (otherwise there would be no comparative border between within and without), then what we define to be "God" also probably doesn't exist outside the universe too. God would have to be quite different than we define it to be. If that's true, than can we justifiably define it as "God"? It would be unknowable- and it is! Anything that exists outside of our physical universe is unknowable to us and is therefore insignificant in relation to us.

All this apologetic talk we have to hear about an "uncaused first cause" only points to a supposed beginning of the universe as it is now observed by our rational minds. That doesn't prove that the universe was created by a higher consciousness (i.e. "God"). The "design theory" is also crap because we cannot possibly perceive our world objectively (as we would be required to do to make such a comparative claim). Behind all theistic "proofs" is the hidden premise that God exists. But, that is supposed to be the conclusion, not the premise!. Therefore, the apologists' portrayal of "reaching" the conclusion that God exists is an illusion, because they've already established that God exists in their premises!

Those theist vs. atheist debates in front of an audience are laughable! They want the audience theists to cheer everytime the theistic apologist "makes a good point". Just because a Christian apologist, like Craig, gains an upper hand in a debate doesn't mean they've established any truth of their position. It just means they've out-smarted their opponent. Be careful that you don't think an outsmarted atheist means that "atheism" itself as been defeated. This, of course, is another illusion William Lane Craig would have you believe. You and he hold the same conclusion (that theism is the truth), therefore you want atheism to be defeated (like in your previous comment "atheism is self-defeating"). Proving atheism (and theism for that matter) to be false is an exercise in futility because you have to prove that people are unable to determine their own use for God!. People simply can(and do!) determine their use for a God. Theists need God, while atheists do not. That is why I try to concentrate on the real issue at hand: Why do theists feel they need God and atheists feel they don't? The only answer I've come up with so far is that theists are unable to empower themselves without a God, while atheists are quite content with reaping their own empowerment. Isn't that why atheists are considered "evil" by theists? -Because atheists can acquire something (real personal power) the theists have to reach outside of the universe (an impossibility) to obtain?

This is a rhetorical question because we have no way to compare the world with Christianity's influence to the world without it. All we have to deal with is the "way things are".
Now, do you see how William Lane Craig and other theistic apologists can screw with your reasoning ability?

Because the theory of Evolution is based on science. That is, it was formulated through observations and comparisons within our physical universe. Did you know throughout history anything that was considered "unknown" was synonymous with "God"? Our early ancestors didn't know the science (i.e. cause and effect) of lightning, so they simply formulated a "spirit" to have caused it (in some cases saying it was a spirit). Since lightning was destructive, an angry spirit was the cause. They didn't know they were projecting their humanity into the physical world, by putting a face ("intent") onto natural physical occurrences. If we settled for every "God" explanation, we would still think lightning means God is angry (and probably still be sacrificing other humans to appease such anger)!
Thankfully, a few inquisitive ancestors took up the scientific method and now even modern day theists know the Truth (at least most of them do). As science grows, "God" (i.e. a face for the unknown) shrinks. Nowadays, our powerful astro telescopes still haven't observed heaven's golden gates even though they've observed millions-of-years-old stars. So, the reinterpretation of God for the modern theist is that God exists in an alternate plane of reality (a "spirit world" if you will). [i]Because that is the last vestige of unobservability![/B] Oh ye ignorant men of God: do you not see that mankind has pushed God away and completely out of the very universe He is purported to have made? Science has won! If not for the very fact that theism now claims it carries the esteemed banner of Science!

Of course there is objective truth without God. The physical universe can have a perspective even though it is not a thinking human rational-minded perspective (the only perspective we "know"). You might be having trouble conceiving of a "non-rational universe perspective" because you may think a rational human-minded perspective has to exist everywhere. But that's simply not true. I don't think a rock "thinks" even if the Bible says they will "cry out to God" (- I think an ape must have wrote that sentence in the Bible...)
Moral values exist solely in humanity. The physical universe has no moral values (I'm taking that is what you mean by "objective" - as in "universally distinct from humanity"). That is why that tornado will roll over your house and kill your family if you don't get out of its way!
However, if you meant "objective" as in "other people besides yourself sharing a value", this is simply because all moral values exist solely in humanity.

I hope the last minutes of my existence aren't spent in worthless prayer to an invisible God. I could think of much more use for those last precious moments: like telling my family I love them and to always remember and re-live the good times we spent together.

No, as I've said numerous times, having no use for God defines atheism (just as having a use for God defines theism). If God "lived" with us and imposed himself upon us, we would have a use for such a God. My stating that the concept of God is outside of logic (and therefore the physical universe) simply means God can't be proven to exist by logical means.

I never said "no God exists outside this universe". In fact, in the light of Science, that's the only possible place God can exist (provided the other dimensions are considered "outside" this universe, and that "God" is not defined as being "the universe").

I believe you did have a real conversion experience (otherwise you wouldn't have been converted). You found yourself in a position where you needed to believe in God. Why you came upon this need is now up for question.

Bloodshed is caused by mankind (and even animal-kind and nature). I was specifically referring to the blood shed by people in the name of God. How can blood be shed in the name of no God? It can be shed by humans who value doing it, but that's very different than saying: "I kill you in the name of...no God". That's absurd! If you mean that killers would have not killed had they believed in God, I might give your argument credence, but only if everyone who believed in God didn't kill. But we all know that's not true now don't we.

I know what Jesus means to you because I know what he psychologically means to every Christian: a means for your self-empowerment. Please honestly tell me what he means to you and just see if what I said doesn't apply to you.

Who are you trying to kid here? Your very belief in hell means that you wish it upon someone (the "evil ones" perhaps?). You say "it is our choice". No one would ever choose to be everlasting tortured.
That's just a rationalization to take the responsibility of torturing people out of God's hands and put it into the hands of the tortured. I affirm that the concept of hell is believed because it is considered the resting place of "evil people". Surely you don't deny "evil people" deserve hell?

I believe that human beings love self-empowerment. I just think there are some that can realistically achieve it and others who are unable to, and need another way to go about achieving it. That is the love you taste.

Take care Powerfull Voices. Thanks for responding to all my posts even though I admit I sometimes can go "over-the-top" in my passion for philosophic writing. I absolutely mean no personal insult to you. I don't think you, as a person, deserve anything but the best. Have a good night and....{dare I say it}...God Bless!