george@sysvis (09/17/85)
> Incorrect. The Bible teaches that the heart (i.e. will) of man is evil and > wicked. Pharaoh, on his own, could have acted no other way. The > unregenerate man (Pharaoh) can only act according to his nature, which > Pharaoh did in this case. What happened to Pharaoh happens to every > person who rejects God and His offer of salvation. If the "Bible" teaches that man is basically evil, where is it? I have seen no evidence of this. It is considered `harmful' for a man to be to be `willful' (read self-glorification) or `wanton' (read `will-less'), but this as an interpretation of all men being basically evil is a totally dif- ferent story. The idea of `evil man' is only a `dogmatic whip' and was created by those who wished to subjugate others for their own purposes. Actually, if one were to try to explain the entire set of actions of men as a whole, the ONLY consistent tautology is developed from the basis that man is basically good. After all, was not (spiritual) man made in the "image of God"? (Genesis) After being made in this image, he fails through his own (acts of) `willfulness' not his (innate) `will'. There is a major and very important difference here. For your own benefit, check it out carefully.
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/22/85)
In article <-145727674@sysvis>, george@sysvis writes: > > If the "Bible" teaches that man is basically evil, where is it? I have > seen no evidence of this. It is considered `harmful' for a man to be to > be `willful' (read self-glorification) or `wanton' (read `will-less'), but > this as an interpretation of all men being basically evil is a totally dif- > ferent story. The idea of `evil man' is only a `dogmatic whip' and was > created by those who wished to subjugate others for their own purposes. > Where to start. I guess the beginning is the best place. "And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5 "All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us have turned to our own way." Isaiah 53:6 Christ, speaking to the masses, "If you then being evil know how to give good gifts to your children ..." Luke 11:13 And the passage that kind of nails what you were saying in a coffin is Romans 3:10-18, "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." > Actually, if one were to try to explain the entire set of actions of men as > a whole, the ONLY consistent tautology is developed from the basis that man > is basically good. After all, was not (spiritual) man made in the "image > of God"? (Genesis) After being made in this image, he fails through his own > (acts of) `willfulness' not his (innate) `will'. There is a major and very > important difference here. For your own benefit, check it out carefully. You're right about man being made in God's image, but two verses help show where you've erred Biblically. "Behold I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices." I won't claim that this is a great passage convicting humanity as a whole of evil, but since many other passages do, this one shows God creating men upright and men choosing to go wrong. By the way, it's from Ecclesiastes 7:9. "And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil." John 3:19 (Christ speaking) I'm somewhat unsure myself about exactly where the nature of evil lives. I'm a firm believer in free-will and so I lean toward the choice side, that men choose to do evil but I also see alot of scripture saying that choice is somewhat built into fallen flesh. Rather than leave you with a pat answer, let me end with a quote that shows what I was just talking about and might get the discusion going on a different track. "But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. ... Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:20-21,25 Rick Frey
st175@sdcc13.UUCP (st175) (09/23/85)
In article <-145727674@sysvis>, george@sysvis writes: > > If the "Bible" teaches that man is basically evil, where is it? I have > seen no evidence of this. here: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God, or give thanks: but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man..........For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.......being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:21-32 NASB "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9 NASB "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient, and worthless for any good deed." Titus 1:16 NASB "And He was saying, 'That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.'" Mark 7:20-23 NASB "For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; and avoid such men as these." 2 Timothy 3:2-5 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Matt 23:27-28 NASB "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was greived in His heart." Genesis 6:5-6 NASB Just telling it like it is, Matt sdcc3!sdcc13!st175 p.s. it's like an old pastor I know once said, "Son, stick to the book!"
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/02/85)
In article <2210@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >In article <-145727674@sysvis>, george@sysvis writes: >> >> If the "Bible" teaches that man is basically evil, where is it? I have >> seen no evidence of this. >> >Where to start. I guess the beginning is the best place. "And the Lord >saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every >intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5 > But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were *acting* wickedly. >"All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us have turned to our >own way." Isaiah 53:6 > Again, a statement of *action*, or *behavior*, not nature or innateness. It says we *have* gone astray, not that we must do so! > "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none >who *understands*, there is none who *seeks* for God; all have *turned* aside, >together they have *become* useless; there is none who *does* good, there is >not even one. > Note the words I have emphasized, they are all *action* words in a tense form indicating a *change* of state. >You're right about man being made in God's image, but two verses help >show where you've erred Biblically. > >"Behold I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have >sought out many devices." I won't claim that this is a great passage >convicting humanity as a whole of evil, but since many other passages >do, this one shows God creating men upright and men choosing to go >wrong. By the way, it's from Ecclesiastes 7:9. > Which is exactly what was being said, that man's inner being, as created by God, is good but we have, by deliberate willfullness, departed from that goodness. Quite different from saying that mankind is intrinsically evil! >I'm somewhat unsure myself about exactly where the nature of evil lives. >I'm a firm believer in free-will and so I lean toward the choice >side, that men choose to do evil but I also see alot of scripture >saying that choice is somewhat built into fallen flesh. Well, I would say that it is as much the corrupt nature of a follen *world* as the nature of humanity. That is we learn evil because it is all around us and we have very little in the way of the truly good as an example of how we should behave. > -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/05/85)
In article <769@psivax.UUCP>, friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > >Where to start. I guess the beginning is the best place. "And the Lord > >saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every > >intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5 > > > But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* > wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were > *acting* wickedly. > But how much deeper can one go than every thought and intent of your heart? > > >You're right about man being made in God's image, but two verses help > >show where you've erred Biblically. > > > >"Behold I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have > >sought out many devices." I won't claim that this is a great passage > >convicting humanity as a whole of evil, but since many other passages > >do, this one shows God creating men upright and men choosing to go > >wrong. By the way, it's from Ecclesiastes 7:9. > > > Which is exactly what was being said, that man's inner being, > as created by God, is good but we have, by deliberate willfullness, > departed from that goodness. Quite different from saying that mankind > is intrinsically evil! > Ok, true in the logic of what you just said, but the last passage of my article (the quote from Romans 7) talks about the war of the two different natures that are present within us. Two different natures, continually warring and fighting for control. One is from God, but the other is intrinsically evil. Just an aside really quickly here. I've always kind of played around with the definition of intrinsic. To me, if someone does something all the time, while in the truest sense, it doesn't have to be intrinsic, int eh practical sense, there's usually little difference (as long as their really is a choice). > >I'm somewhat unsure myself about exactly where the nature of evil lives. > >I'm a firm believer in free-will and so I lean toward the choice > >side, that men choose to do evil but I also see alot of scripture > >saying that choice is somewhat built into fallen flesh. > Now for one question. Why did you only respond to the easier quotes? You left out a few quotes that I'll repost and I'm interested in hearing how you explain these. I find myself agreeing with you in idea, but not in evidence and support from the Bible. Anyway ... Christ, speaking to the masses, "If you then being evil know how to give good gifts to your children ..." Luke 11:13 How much more blatant can you get than this (I shouldn't ask that because it gets plainer). Christ is saying that we as people are simply evil in our nature. Romans 3:10-18, "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." What would you say about someone who you could accurately describe with this passage? They're confused? They're not really that bad? Why do action words not reflect the place where the actions came from? Christ says that bad fruit doesn't come from good trees and that a tree can only produce after its kind. If the deeds are evil, then what must the nature be? That's the whole reasoning behind Christ's call for us to be 'born again' and to 'die to ourselves'. Paul talks about in Galatians, "For I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me." Gal 2:20 When Paul says its no longer he who lives, he's not saying that he committed suicide or that he's a robot, but that the sinful nature (from Romans 7) has been put to death, and that the good part of him (what God created us to be) has been brought to life in Christ. Unfortunately this is a paraphrase, and it also goes back on the deeds/nature question, but it's a favorite passage of mine where Christ describes the nature of men. "And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness for their deeds were evil. It goes on about how Christ is the light and men are afraid to come to the light for again, their deeds are evil. But knowing Christ's teachings on outward nature being a manafestation of inward nature and the heart of man in general, it seems willfully errant to say that Christ isn't hitting on what's inside people. Just in writing this (forgive me if it sounds a little harsh) I think a problem I have in discussing this issue is that I'm not concerned with the nature of man. I'm convinced that free-will exists and that men choose to do evil. What that's a formula for or what you want to call that (original sin, sin nature, etc.) doesn't make any difference to me. So we might in fact be agreeing and just arguing over terminology, I'm not too sure. One last thing. > Well, I would say that it is as much the corrupt nature of a > fallen *world* as the nature of humanity. That is we learn evil > because it is all around us and we have very little in the way of the > truly good as an example of how we should behave. > You talk about man being a product or at least somewhat reflecting a fallen world, and my answer to that is get the order straight. Man fell, taking the world down with him. And I think that that's the way it is today. Although I do get angry about boneheaded science professors who use their position and authority (and not accurate information) to impose their beliefs on students, and I do get angry about situations like South Africa, and Central America, but in many ways (I'm not trying to bail on these questions, they're simply the topic of another issue) these too are the product of people. And by the way, I get bummed about preachers and Christian profs who try to do the same things; i.e arguing against science and evolution from a church publication when they know nothing and care less about what they're discussing. The lack of intellectual integrity hits both sides. Does that sound fatuous or what. I'm sitting back in my nice office on campus, getting paid to work for these professors I'm maligning. Gese. As you can see when I get into a discussion that I'm excited about I have a tendency to start rambling and just get into saying what pops up rather than trying to hammer your points into the ground and win the argument (win??). Accordingly, forgive the almost diary-style with which I ended this posting. Rick Frey
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/12/85)
>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* >> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were >> *acting* wickedly. > But how much deeper can one go than every thought and intent of your heart? Maybe every thought and intent of YOUR heart, bucko! PLEASE don't be so damned presumptuous as to claim that because YOU feel your innards to be naturally evil that everyone else IS the way you feel you are. Really, is this the reason for the Christian movement towards moral imposition: that we are dealing with people who essentially feel themselves to be hideously evil and thus assume that everyone else is, too, thus "requiring" that society have stringent restrictions to protect us from those who don't "recognize" that they are evil the way these good people (?) do? What a revolting self-debasing philosophy! > I think a problem > I have in discussing this issue is that I'm not concerned with the nature of > man. I'm convinced that free-will exists and that men choose to do evil. > What that's a formula for or what you want to call that (original sin, sin > nature, etc.) doesn't make any difference to me. Nothing like working from unfounded assumptions... > You talk about man being a product or at least somewhat reflecting a fallen > world, and my answer to that is get the order straight. Man fell, taking > the world down with him. And I think that that's the way it is today. > Although I do get angry about boneheaded science professors who use their > position and authority (and not accurate information) to impose their beliefs > on students, But seemingly less angry about your own beliefs that we "are" evil (because you say so) being foisted upon the rest of us. Doesn't that strike you as equally "boneheaded"? -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/14/85)
> Some God you envision. Terry Gilliam (not Monty Python), who made "Time > Bandits", quite obviously intended the introduction of Ralph Richardson as > God as a very cute bit of satire. Sad that those who are so entrenched in > their beliefs didn't get the joke. Are you sure that couldn't work both ways? > If memory serves, Paul has been very consistent (contrary to what Craig > claims) in saying that god did not create the universe. Is that something to be proud of? Consistently saying something? > In any case, > if this is so (and Paul gives a very convincing argument that if a god > exists it could not have been the "ultimate" creator) Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are using 'could' in a conditional sense, Paul has in no way provided any evidence whatsoever proving God to have done anything. His entire argument that God isn't the ultimate creator is that we can ask since nothing can come out of nothing, God must have been created. And that's a convincing argument? Paul's other point is that since he can see how the sciences have 'proved' that we evolved, obviously God didn't create us. You seem pretty easy to please if you consider Paul's argument's convincing. >> But how much deeper can one go than every thought and intent of your heart? > Maybe every thought and intent of YOUR heart, bucko! PLEASE don't be > so damned presumptuous as to claim that because YOU feel your innards to > be naturally evil that everyone else IS the way you feel you are. Winner of the out of context quote of the month. The line you quoted is from the Bible and the actual words are my paraphrase in response to a discussion about the evil in people's hearts and what the Bible had to say about it. > is this the reason for the Christian movement towards moral imposition: that > we are dealing with people who essentially feel themselves to be hideously > evil and thus assume that everyone else is, too, thus "requiring" that > society have stringent restrictions to protect us from those who don't > "recognize" that they are evil the way these good people (?) do? What > a revolting self-debasing philosophy! > First I could ask you (you seem to dislike unfounded assumptions) what you claim to be the nature of people. Look at the world around us and the people and tell me how wonderful and kind people are. Secondly, while I believe what the Bible says, I didn't say it. God did. If you want to complain to someone about criticizing people, talk to God. >> I'm convinced that free-will exists and that men choose to do evil. > Nothing like working from unfounded assumptions... I missed Rich Rosen vs. the world on the free-will debate and rather than start it again, I'll simply say that you, not knowing anything about my environement and about what goes on in my mind you aren't in a very good position to categoricaly deny the free-will of anyone other than yourself. Who's making the unfounded assumption? > But seemingly less angry about your own beliefs that we "are" evil (because > you say so) being foisted upon the rest of us. Doesn't that strike you as > equally "boneheaded"? Being foisted? I simply quoted the Bible and repeated words that Christ said to people way back then. I have no right, no authority and no knowledge with which to judge you or condemn you. God, however, claims to. The Bible says that each of us have the law of God written in our hearts and that we are responsible to God for our actions. Are you a bonehead for foisting your belief in the lack of free-will on me? Rick Frey
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
>> Some God you envision. Terry Gilliam (not Monty Python), who made "Time >> Bandits", quite obviously intended the introduction of Ralph Richardson as >> God as a very cute bit of satire. Sad that those who are so entrenched in >> their beliefs didn't get the joke. [ROSEN] > Are you sure that couldn't work both ways? Very sure. I have more than passingly familiar with the work of Terry Gilliam with and without Monty Python, and interviews with him about this movie confirm what I have said about your ironic misconception. >> If memory serves, Paul has been very consistent (contrary to what Craig >> claims) in saying that god did not create the universe. > Is that something to be proud of? Consistently saying something? Well, it is when you claim he was waffling back and forth when in fact he hadn't. Proud that the only way to debunk his position is seemingly to tell lies about it. (Another thing I am more than passingly familiar with, from experience.) >> In any case, >> if this is so (and Paul gives a very convincing argument that if a god >> exists it could not have been the "ultimate" creator) > Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are using 'could' in a > conditional sense, Paul has in no way provided any evidence whatsoever > proving God to have done anything. His entire argument that God isn't > the ultimate creator is that we can ask since nothing can come out of > nothing, God must have been created. And that's a convincing argument? You mean it isn't? What scenarios have YOU come up with that are better. > Paul's other point is that since he can see how the sciences have 'proved' > that we evolved, obviously God didn't create us. You seem pretty easy > to please if you consider Paul's argument's convincing. I don't recall Paul saying ANYTHING about evolution, so it would seem that, as with your conclusion about Time Bandits, you are engaging in wishful thinking again. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul.) I think the problem is that you are a pretty iintransigent cookie if Paul's arguments don't convince you. I mean, they may not be the greatest arguments in the world (frankly, Paul reminds me a bit of Wile E. Coyote, what with everything going wrong in his life attributable to the "Acme" damager god :-), but they are certainly less presumptive than yours. >>> But how much deeper can one go than every thought and intent of your heart? >> Maybe every thought and intent of YOUR heart, bucko! PLEASE don't be >> so damned presumptuous as to claim that because YOU feel your innards to >> be naturally evil that everyone else IS the way you feel you are. > Winner of the out of context quote of the month. The line you quoted is > from the Bible and the actual words are my paraphrase in response to > a discussion about the evil in people's hearts and what the Bible had to say > about it. Make that IN context quote of the month! I repeat the question that Rick was answering above in '>>>': >>>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were >>>> *acting* wickedly. His claim was that to "prove" that humanity is by nature wicked, look in "every thought and intent of your heart". I repeat: this is a contemptuous and presumptuous notion, that may very well apply to Rick (or he may just perceive things that way), but he cannot speak for the rest of humanity. >>is this the reason for the Christian movement towards moral imposition: that >>we are dealing with people who essentially feel themselves to be hideously >>evil and thus assume that everyone else is, too, thus "requiring" that >>society have stringent restrictions to protect us from those who don't >>"recognize" that they are evil the way these good people (?) do? What >>a revolting self-debasing philosophy! > First I could ask you (you seem to dislike unfounded assumptions) what you > claim to be the nature of people. Look at the world around us and the people > and tell me how wonderful and kind people are. I don't claim that people are all always absolutely wonderful and kind. To do so would be factually wrong. But likewise, it would be equally wrong to assert (as you do) that the converse is true. The way people act is based on their perceptions of their needs. Some people engage in acts that are perceived by others as evil, because these acts interfere with THEIR lives and possessions. And they are right in doing that, because evil can only be defined subjectively as that which brings you harm. On the other hand, other people acknowledge the rights of other human beings, and recognize that doing so may aid in procuring mutual cooperation among people. Within the scope of such a morality, "evil" is that which interferes with personal individual human rights, because we know that an interference allowable toward any one person could also be allowable against us. In any case, I see no reason to reach your presumptuous conclusion that the nature of people is "evil". If they have any intelligence and longterm foresight (as more and more people do) they learn that satisfying short term interest/need at the expense of other people ("evil") is not as beneficial as the long view. > Secondly, while I believe what the Bible says, I didn't say it. God did. > If you want to complain to someone about criticizing people, talk to God. It is only your assertion that (1) there is a god at all, (2) that god is of the specific type you believe (desire?) it to be, and (3) that this Bible is the work of that god. This is called assuming your own conclusion. You believe humanity is evil, for whatever reason, thus you assume that god agrees with you in your opinion of people. >>> I'm convinced that free-will exists and that men choose to do evil. >> Nothing like working from unfounded assumptions... > I missed Rich Rosen vs. the world on the free-will debate and rather than > start it again, I'll simply say that you, not knowing anything about my > environement and about what goes on in my mind you aren't in a very good > position to categoricaly deny the free-will of anyone other than yourself. > Who's making the unfounded assumption? You are, of course. If you read what has been quaintly called RRvTW on free will, you'd know that there are valid reasons for denying the presumption that you have this free will. BUT, just out of curiosity, and for my own edification, I would greatly appreciate your explaining to me (and everyone) what you mean by free will, and the mechanism by which it manifests itself. >> But seemingly less angry about your own beliefs that we "are" evil (because >> you say so) being foisted upon the rest of us. Doesn't that strike you as >> equally "boneheaded"? > Being foisted? I simply quoted the Bible and repeated words that Christ said > to people way back then. I have no right, no authority and no knowledge with > which to judge you or condemn you. God, however, claims to. The Bible says > that each of us have the law of God written in our hearts and that we are > responsible to God for our actions. Again, this is only your assertion, and I repeat that your beliefs that people are ipso facto evil or "fallen", which are also nothing but assertions, should not be applied to the rest of us against our will. Again, ironic that you omitted the section which I was responding to above, describing your assumptions and assertions that "man fell", and stating that professors who teach what you call "not accurate information" (which I assume really means facts that you disagree with) to students (I guess that's the "humanism" that Christians want out of schools). I'm grateful when students do get taught some semblance of objective thought, and it's too bad if learning to be more rigorous in thinking leads them to the conclusion that your beliefs are erroneous. > Are you a bonehead for foisting your belief in the lack of free-will on me? The "foisting" I do is to present substantiation for my opinion. (Which you admit you haven't read.) The "foisting" you and your kind do leads to legislation in the halls of Congress, where your religious beliefs have no place in a free country. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/22/85)
In article <1939@pyuxd.UUCP>, rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > > Very sure. I have more than passingly familiar with the work of Terry > Gilliam with and without Monty Python, and interviews with him about this > movie confirm what I have said about your ironic misconception. > I've never seen any of them (Monty Python) or Terry Gilliam being interviewed and I have few doubts that you aren't right in saying that there portrayal of God was satirical. But maybe the irony at least works both ways. Can I at least have that much? > > > Is that something to be proud of? Consistently saying something? > > Well, it is when you claim he was waffling back and forth when in fact he > hadn't. Proud that the only way to debunk his position is seemingly > to tell lies about it. (Another thing I am more than passingly familiar > with, from experience.) > If you're going to insult me and call me a liar, at least do it for something that I said. I've never said Paul hasn't been consistent, I've been hammered over the head with his consistency which is great. And I have no idea what 'lies' you're referring to so either clarify or make sure that the person you're writing to is the one responsible for the actions of which you accuse them. > > Paul has in no way provided any evidence whatsoever > > proving God to have done anything. His entire argument that God isn't > > the ultimate creator is that we can ask since nothing can come out of > > nothing, God must have been created. And that's a convincing argument? > > You mean it isn't? What scenarios have YOU come up with that are better. > Woah, what does this have to do with Paul's argument being convincing. You made a simple statement that Paul's arguments were convincing. Asking aboout my arguments has nothing to do with that assertion. My solution might not be any more convincing, in your eyes it might be ludicrous, but we were talking about your description of Paul's arguments and their plausibility, not mine. What in Paul's arguments convinces you? > > I don't recall Paul saying ANYTHING about evolution, so it would seem that, > as with your conclusion about Time Bandits, you are engaging in wishful > thinking again. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul.) Can't I correct you? Read Paul's response to me and you can see where he responds to my questioning him about evolution and the existence of God. Don't worry about this one though, I know how hard it is to get excited about keeping up with someone else's arguments. > > > Winner of the out of context quote of the month. The line you quoted is > > from the Bible and the actual words are my paraphrase in response to > > a discussion about the evil in people's hearts and what the Bible had to say > > about it. > > Make that IN context quote of the month! I repeat the question that Rick was > answering above in '>>>': > > >>>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* > >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were > >>>> *acting* wickedly. > > His claim was that to "prove" that humanity is by nature wicked, look > in "every thought and intent of your heart". I repeat: this is a contemptuous > and presumptuous notion, that may very well apply to Rick (or he may just > perceive things that way), but he cannot speak for the rest of humanity. And again while you tried to pass off my quoting the Bible as me actually speaking, that is not my quote. If I quoote Shakespeare, are those now my words just because I said them? Christ said that you're heart and my hearts were evil in every thought and intention. You accused me of saying that and of being presumptious. I didn't say look into your own heart and see if that was true (like you say I do), I was referring to a question about what the Bible says about the nature of man. I made no comment to individual people. There's absolutely no convolution of logic or meaning that can get you out of this one (I can't wait to see you try though). Whether or not I agree with it, Christ still said it. I could have posted it to laugh at or to use it to accuse you but either way, Christ made the claim and Christ is the presumptious one. > > I don't claim that people are all always absolutely wonderful and kind. > To do so would be factually wrong. But likewise, it would be equally wrong > to assert (as you do) that the converse is true. The way people act is > based on their perceptions of their needs. You're absolutely right except for saying that I say people are evil all the time. Christ talks about earthly fathers giving good gifts to their children and about sinners loving those that are kind to them so it's not so much a statement about absolute evil in outward action as it is in behavior being determined by exactly the means you listed. God calls us to determine our behavior with every thought and intention focused on Him. To not do that is 'evil'. > > > Secondly, while I believe what the Bible says, I didn't say it. God did. > > If you want to complain to someone about criticizing people, talk to God. > > It is only your assertion that (1) there is a god at all, (2) that god is > of the specific type you believe (desire?) it to be, and (3) that this > Bible is the work of that god. This is called assuming your own > conclusion. You believe humanity is evil, for whatever reason, thus you > assume that god agrees with you in your opinion of people. > (1) I assert that Oxygen has an atomic weitght of 15.9994 grams/mole. (2) I assert that objects falling freely, disregarding air resistance fall with an acceleration of 9.8 meters/sec squared. If I assert something, that doesn't automatically invalidate it. You could be completely wrong in saying that it is only my assertion about God existing that makes Him exist (whatever type of existence that would be); just as my asserting that the acceleration due to gravity is due to my asserting it and not due to the interaction of the masses of the two objects and the distance between them. > > You are, of course. (making the unfounded assumptions) Thank you for clarifying that. > BUT, just out of curiosity, and for my own edification, I would greatly > appreciate your explaining to me (and everyone) what you mean by free > will, and the mechanism by which it manifests itself. > You posed the question the most important and necessary way for it to receive any kind of meaningful answer; what do I (or anyone) mean by free will. It's an excellent question. In trying to think up the brilliant, nobel prize in philosophy award winning answer, I realize and freely accept that much of what I base my belief in free will on is subjective and internal. Just to get you mad I could simply say that the Bible says it, I believe it and that's the end of it, but being a Psychology major and having dealt extensively with learning theory, behavior modification and also the biological bases for behavioral determinism (aren't those great buzzwords?) I don't think that they can adequately describe what we can only know subjectively. And that is that I go throughout a day and make these things that for lack a more neutral word I'll call decisions and neither one's environment nor the physiochemistry of one's brain is soley resoponsible for determining one's actions. Do you want to call those things I do decisions? And if you call them that than if at least to some extent I (here's another relevant question, what/who am I) have some say in how I will behave, then, yes, I believe that's free will and the ability to make decisions. Another incredibly horrible, subjective and assumptive proof that I feel more strongly insists on free will is that God through the Bible says that we are responsible for our choices. If some day I can understand how I have no real choice but yet am responsible for my choice (the basis for many teachings on predestination and something that to me seems like a paradox) then maybe my whims of free will will go away. But I've spent to many days out in the yard going through random motions, trying to find incalcuable patterns just so God wouldn't be able to have known what I was going to do. I used to spend hours agonizing over the fact that I couldn't really choose but everything in my life and also in the field of psychology (both behaviorism and physiological) still lets me stick with free will. Forgive me for turning the question around and for also starting up soomething that you've probably already dealt with, but what makes you feel we don't have free will? I don't mean to make that sound so vague and general, but it would seem to me (and I could be wrong here from a tactical or logical standpoint) that the burden of proof in stating something about me and people categorically would be on you or on anyone trying to make such a statement. > > Again, this is only your assertion, and I repeat that your beliefs that people > are ipso facto evil or "fallen", which are also nothing but assertions Which is nothing but your own assertion. > Should not be applied to the rest of us against our will. Don't listen to it or apply it to yourself. You obviously don't feel guilty about not keeping the Sabbath or not praying or not giving money to the church, so why should it be any different when I simply bring one of these commandments (which you feel to be invalid both objectively and in reference to yourself) to your attention. If you tell me that I'm a bad person for not bowing to trees when I go to school every morning and that every thought and intention of my heart is bad because I don't worship trees, that wouldn't bother me at all. I'd listen to you politely, nod and smile and then walk by and go on to class. If it doesn't hit you as being accurate in any way or being valid in any way than it's your choice (assuming free will of course) to let it bother you. > Again, ironic that you > omitted the section which I was responding to above My postnews coommand when I tell it to include a copy of the article says to supress any unnecessary verbiage. Not denying it or saying anything against it, it just didn't have a whole lot to do with what I was directly addressing. I do what my computer tells me. > and stating that professors who teach what you call not accurate information > (which I assume really means facts that you disagree with) That's a really poor assumption. Sorry if I sound like a school teacher here but what grounds did you have for making that assumption? What facts did you base it on? Percentage of people on the net that make unfounded claims so the odds were favorable? If it's hard for you to see any intelligence or objectivity outside of your own conclusions on life, existence et al (which I admit is quite difficult alot of times) at least don't assume the worst until it's confirmed. If for no other reason than the long term benefits you listed before about societal cooperation and mutual benefit, some day you might make a real fool out of yourself when the person you accuse of claiming information to be inaccurate becasue they disagree with it turns out to be a hundred times more rigorous than yourself. And no this is no statement whatsoever about you and I. > > The "foisting" I do is to present substantiation for my opinion. Not to ask a silly question, but what was I doing? In context, I was responding to a question that Stanley Friesen asked me about the nature of mankind. I was substantiating my position with the most applicable source (seeing as how we were discussing what the Bible has to say about the heart of man). > The "foisting" you and your kind do leads to legislation in the halls of > Congress, where your religious beliefs have no place in a free country. > -- I hope this doesn't shock you overly, but I agree. I think the idea that the US is a 'religious' country is a crock and the idea of legislating morality is just a no go. I will, however, say that things like abortion, child pornography could be wrong for other reasons, outside of the fact that God condemns them. > Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. I've always liked your quote selection. You've got some great statements and ideas represented in most of them but just like you were saying with Terry Gilliam, you don't intend them to be taken the way I take them, but I like your E.E. Cummings quote probably as much as you do. In fact the apostle Paul (not Paul Zimmerman) has his own version of it, "Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good, acceptable and perfect." Your quote is close to excellent but in my eyes it makes the correct negative assertion without the needed positive exhortation that Paul gives. Rick Frey (...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415) !sdcc7!ln63fac)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/30/85)
> I've never seen any of them (Monty Python) or Terry Gilliam being > interviewed and I have few doubts that you aren't right in saying that > there portrayal of God was satirical. But maybe the irony at least > works both ways. Can I at least have that much? [FREY on Time Bandits] I don't think so. The point of the scene was to satirize the ridiculous pompous notions of god-hood that people have. And it did so admirably, making the magnificent god figure into a stuffy bureaucrat who isn't even sure of the rules or the reasons why. ("I think it has something to do with free will...") And interestingly enough, that's the way so many Christians seem to view god, a bureaucrat more interested in failure to live strictly by the letter of the law than the needs of people. Lending credence to the notion that each individual person's perspective on god is a personal projection. >>> Is that something to be proud of? Consistently saying something? >> Well, it is when you claim he was waffling back and forth when in fact he >> hadn't. Proud that the only way to debunk his position is seemingly >> to tell lies about it. (Another thing I am more than passingly familiar >> with, from experience.) > If you're going to insult me and call me a liar, at least do it for > something that I said. I've never said Paul hasn't been consistent, > I've been hammered over the head with his consistency which is great. > And I have no idea what 'lies' you're referring to so either clarify or > make sure that the person you're writing to is the one responsible for > the actions of which you accuse them. Now this is truly quaint. I had to dig deep to find out exactly what DID happen here. Rick conveniently left out a LOT of relevant extracts here. (Why?) I'll briefly reproduce some of it here. First, it was Craig Stanfill's article, in which HE accused Paul Zimmerman of having waffled on the issue (when in fact, to my recollection, he had not). I responded to STANFILL by saying that Paul had NOT been inconsistent at all, and FREY (for some unknown reason) "responded" by saying "Is that something to be proud of?" (Ignoring totally the original falsehood referred to.) I guess Rick interpreted "when you claim" to be directed at him (it was meant to be a "generic" you, as in "you gets what you pays for"). Odd, in the first place, that Rick should go out of his way to respond to an article, making statements like "Is that anything to be proud of?", when he later ADMITTED that he had "no idea what lies I was referring to" (i.e., the original subject matter of MY article)!!!!! This is what you get (you specifically here, Rick, and people in general) when you respond to an article where you have no idea what is being discussed. >>> Paul has in no way provided any evidence whatsoever >>> proving God to have done anything. His entire argument that God isn't >>> the ultimate creator is that we can ask since nothing can come out of >>> nothing, God must have been created. And that's a convincing argument? >>You mean it isn't? What scenarios have YOU come up with that are better. > Woah, what does this have to do with Paul's argument being convincing. > You made a simple statement that Paul's arguments were convincing. > Asking aboout my arguments has nothing to do with that assertion. My > solution might not be any more convincing, in your eyes it might be > ludicrous, but we were talking about your description of Paul's > arguments and their plausibility, not mine. What in Paul's arguments > convinces you? The fact that he recognizes the absurdity of an "ultimate" god. If there is one (let's try the simple proof by contradiction technique), then how was the "universe" where IT resides created, and by whom? Etc. He recognized a simple logical fallacy. But you're right, the scenarios of religionists are just as ludicrous as those of maltheists, because of their fundamentally flawed presumptions. >> I don't recall Paul saying ANYTHING about evolution, so it would seem that, >> as with your conclusion about Time Bandits, you are engaging in wishful >> thinking again. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul.) > Can't I correct you? Read Paul's response to me and you can see where > he responds to my questioning him about evolution and the existence of > God. Don't worry about this one though, I know how hard it is to get > excited about keeping up with someone else's arguments. Obviously you see no need to do so when jumping into the middle of a discussion between two other people to blurt out "Is that something to proud of?" without knowing the circumstances involved. I had been following Paul's arguments with interest (he seems to have disappeared for a time, at least from news articles arriving here), because although his arguments are just as flawed as yours, I find it interesting to see the religionist responses to them. Those responses have often involved name calling (by Christians?), and are quite humorous the way they berate Paul's opinions for the very same reasons that I have often found fault with religionist opinions! >>> Winner of the out of context quote of the month. The line you quoted is >>> from the Bible and the actual words are my paraphrase in response to >>> a discussion about the evil in people's hearts and what the Bible had to say >>> about it. >>Make that IN context quote of the month! I repeat the question that Rick was >>answering above in '>>>': >> >>>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* >> >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were >> >>>> *acting* wickedly. >>His claim was that to "prove" that humanity is by nature wicked, look >>in "every thought and intent of your heart". I repeat: this is a contemptuous >>and presumptuous notion, that may very well apply to Rick (or he may just >>perceive things that way), but he cannot speak for the rest of humanity. > And again while you tried to pass off my quoting the Bible as me > actually speaking, that is not my quote. If I quoote Shakespeare, are > those now my words just because I said them? Do you often quote phrases that you disagree with? Do you say "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" when you actually believe in "He who hesitates is lost"? (Or vice versa, whatever the case might be.) Odd (again) that you deliberately left out the quote in question. In answer to the question at hand. you had said the following. (You *could* have quoted Shakespeare, but instead you CHOSE this specific passage, I assume because you believe it!) "But how much deeper can one go than every thought and intent of your heart?" > Christ said that you're > heart and my hearts were evil in every thought and intention. You > accused me of saying that and of being presumptious. I didn't say look > into your own heart and see if that was true (like you say I do), I was > referring to a question about what the Bible says about the nature of > man. I made no comment to individual people. There's absolutely > no convolution of logic or meaning that can get you out of this one (I > can't wait to see you try though). Not only will I try, I will succeed. It's easy when you're (you, Rick Frey) the one who has convoluted the logic. Remember the statement you rebutted: >> >>>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* >> >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were >> >>>> *acting* wickedly. You chose that response as an answer to the question of the nature of humanity. Yet you say this does not refer to "individual people". Last time I looked, humanity was composed of individual people, and when you make claims about the nature of humanity, you are referring to those people. You can claim "those aren't claims, those are the words of god". You CLAIM those are the words of god, which is great, if that's what you're into. But the burden of proof is on you. And when you claim that that is that nature, and when your colleagues in Christendom claim that that is a reason to impose your morality on the rest of us, I'd suggest putting up (some proof) or shutting up. > Whether or not I agree with it, Christ still said it. So? > I could have posted it to laugh at or to use it to accuse you but either way, > Christ made the claim and Christ is the presumptious one. And you, being a Christian, and BELIEVING in what he has to say, hold those same presumptions. Some are not even aware of that, they just say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." At least you are aware that the one you claim to be god is presumptuous in the extreme. (Or was there some proof that you have uncovered over the years that supports the notion you quoted?) >>> Secondly, while I believe what the Bible says, I didn't say it. God did. >>> If you want to complain to someone about criticizing people, talk to God. >>It is only your assertion that (1) there is a god at all, (2) that god is >>of the specific type you believe (desire?) it to be, and (3) that this >>Bible is the work of that god. This is called assuming your own >>conclusion. You believe humanity is evil, for whatever reason, thus you >>assume that god agrees with you in your opinion of people. > (1) I assert that Oxygen has an atomic weitght of 15.9994 grams/mole. > (2) I assert that objects falling freely, disregarding air resistance > fall with an acceleration of 9.8 meters/sec squared. > If I assert something, that doesn't automatically invalidate it. You > could be completely wrong in saying that it is only my assertion about > God existing that makes Him exist (whatever type of existence that would > be); Stop. No, if you assert something, that doesn't automatically invalidate it. If you assert something and don't have any supporting proof for it (as you would for the two statements above, if I recall my physics and chemistry), then what you are saying IS *just* your assertion, nothing more. Nowhere did I say that your assertion "makes him exist". The fact that this is ONLY your assertion, and that you support the whole notion with presumptions of your own design, makes it likely that, if there is a god at all, that the likelihood of it being of the form you like is nil. >>BUT, just out of curiosity, and for my own edification, I would greatly >>appreciate your explaining to me (and everyone) what you mean by free >>will, and the mechanism by which it manifests itself. > You posed the question the most important and necessary way for it to > receive any kind of meaningful answer; what do I (or anyone) mean by > free will. It's an excellent question. In trying to think up the > brilliant, nobel prize in philosophy award winning answer, I realize and > freely accept that much of what I base my belief in free will on is > subjective and internal. Just to get you mad I could simply say that > the Bible says it, I believe it and that's the end of it, It wouldn't get me mad. It wouldn't surprise me, though. > but being a Psychology major and having dealt extensively with learning > theory, behavior modification and also the biological bases for behavioral > determinism (aren't those great buzzwords?) I don't think that they can > adequately describe what we can only know subjectively. Is this "we don't understand it, therefore it must be part of the supernatural" rationalization? > And that is that I go throughout a day and make these things that for lack a > more neutral word I'll call decisions and neither one's environment nor the > physiochemistry of one's brain is soley resoponsible for determining > one's actions. ************* ATTENTION: net.philosoph(y)ers -- take note. Obviously Mr. Frey is asserting things about free will. But what is it that he is asserting about free will? He is insisting that "neither one's environment nor the physiochemistry of one's brain is solely responsible for determining one's actions", and I assume that THAT is what is commonly meant by free will, am I right, Rick? > Do you want to call those things I do decisions? And if > you call them that than if at least to some extent I (here's another > relevant question, what/who am I) have some say in how I will behave, > then, yes, I believe that's free will and the ability to make decisions. Fine, Rick. I have no problem with any of that, provided we both recognize the assumptions you come from (as noted above) when you say these things. I just wanted to clarify for my own edification (and hopefully others' as well) what is meant by free will. Hmmm.... > Another incredibly horrible, subjective and assumptive proof that I feel > more strongly insists on free will is that God through the Bible says > that we are responsible for our choices. If some day I can understand > how I have no real choice but yet am responsible for my choice (the > basis for many teachings on predestination and something that to me seems > like a paradox) then maybe my whims of free will will go away. That's been one of my points all along. In a world where we don't have free will, what breed of justice holds us responsible for our actions, especially when dealing with punishment for actions one has learned and been conditioned towards? > But I've spent to many days out in the yard going through random motions, > trying to find incalcuable patterns just so God wouldn't be able to have > known what I was going to do. I used to spend hours agonizing over the fact > that I couldn't really choose but everything in my life and also in the > field of psychology (both behaviorism and physiological) still lets me > stick with free will. Forgive me for turning the question around and > for also starting up soomething that you've probably already dealt with, > but what makes you feel we don't have free will? A simple invocation of Occam, reducing assumptions as much as possible. I have no reason to believe that we are internally any different (in some "special" way) from the rest of the existing world, rather that our brains live by the same laws as those of other animals or even the same laws applicable to inanimate objects. With that in mind, I find free will to be an anthropocentric wishful thinking assumption. >>Again, this is only your assertion, and I repeat that your beliefs that people >>are ipso facto evil or "fallen", which are also nothing but assertions > Which is nothing but your own assertion. Wait a minute! When I say your beliefs are nothing but assertions, *I* am making an assertion? Well, if this is true, then you must have some solid proof that what you are saying is more than just an assertion. I'd be very interested in hearing some of that proof... >>Should not be applied to the rest of us against our will. > Don't listen to it or apply it to yourself. You obviously don't feel > guilty about not keeping the Sabbath or not praying or not giving money > to the church, so why should it be any different when I simply bring one > of these commandments (which you feel to be invalid both objectively and > in reference to yourself) to your attention. If you tell me that I'm a > bad person for not bowing to trees when I go to school every morning and > that every thought and intention of my heart is bad because I don't > worship trees, that wouldn't bother me at all. I'd listen to you > politely, nod and smile and then walk by and go on to class. If it > doesn't hit you as being accurate in any way or being valid in any way > than it's your choice (assuming free will of course) to let it bother > you. And if you were told that you couldn't hold public office if you didn't worship trees, or that you could be discriminated against because you don't worship trees, or that your particular chosen practices would be outlawed, not because they harmed anybody, but because they ran counter to "tree worship"? What then????? >>Again, ironic that you >>omitted the section which I was responding to above > My postnews coommand when I tell it to include a copy of the article > says to supress any unnecessary verbiage. Not denying it or saying > anything against it, it just didn't have a whole lot to do with what I > was directly addressing. I do what my computer tells me. The things I could say about certain religious mentalities at this point. Again, I am strong, I will resist the temptation... >>and stating that professors who teach what you call not accurate information >>(which I assume really means facts that you disagree with) > That's a really poor assumption. Sorry if I sound like a school teacher > here but what grounds did you have for making that assumption? Of course, I could be wrong. Why not tell us what some of these things you call "not accurate" information are? > What facts did you base it on? Percentage of people on the net that make > unfounded claims so the odds were favorable? If it's hard for you to see > any intelligence or objectivity outside of your own conclusions on life, > existence et al (which I admit is quite difficult alot of times) at > least don't assume the worst until it's confirmed. If you had specifically described what "non-accurate" things you were talking about, there would be no need for assumption. Forgive me for "assuming" that you are no different from other Christians who have stated the same thing. > If for no other > reason than the long term benefits you listed before about societal > cooperation and mutual benefit, some day you might make a real fool out > of yourself when the person you accuse of claiming information to be > inaccurate becasue they disagree with it turns out to be a hundred times > more rigorous than yourself. Then the time has come, my friend, for you to show us all what a "real fool" I am, by showing us your rigorousness, your objectivity, your proof. I'll be waiting patiently. I've got lots of time. So do you. >> The "foisting" I do is to present substantiation for my opinion. > Not to ask a silly question, but what was I doing? Note that I was talking about you and those who hold similar opinions to yours who ARE engaging in foisting. Or don't you believe that? > In context, I was responding to a question that Stanley Friesen asked me > about the nature of mankind. I was substantiating my position with the > most applicable source (seeing as how we were discussing what the Bible has > to say about the heart of man). And stating that "the Bible is the most applicable source" to discuss the nature of mankind is a blatant assumption. >>The "foisting" you and your kind do leads to legislation in the halls of >>Congress, where your religious beliefs have no place in a free country. > I hope this doesn't shock you overly, but I agree. I think the idea > that the US is a 'religious' country is a crock and the idea of > legislating morality is just a no go. I will, however, say that things > like abortion, child pornography could be wrong for other reasons, > outside of the fact that God condemns them. Well, regardless of your unsubstantiated opinions about god, I'm glad you agree. But I this means you recognize that government of a nation of diverse people cannot be founded on the unprovable principles of a few. >> Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. > I've always liked your quote selection. You've got some great > statements and ideas represented in most of them but just like you were > saying with Terry Gilliam, you don't intend them to be taken the way I > take them, but I like your E.E. Cummings quote probably as much as you > do. In fact the apostle Paul (not Paul Zimmerman) has his own version > of it, "Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the > renewing of your mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that > which is good, acceptable and perfect." Which is just conforming to a new mold (the image YOU believe god has in mind for you and people in general), which is of course the antithesis of what that quote is all about. > Your quote is close to excellent but in my eyes it makes the correct negative > assertion without the needed positive exhortation that Paul gives. Based on your assumptions about god. I wonder if you've ever stopped to think about this: what IF Paul (Zimmerman, not the apostle) is right? What does that make of your whole set of opinions? > Summary: But what about the Life of Brian ... If you're going to tell me that you got a "positive Christian" message from "Life of Brian", please save it for a separate article. If ever a movie showed what a farce religious dogmatism is, that was it. And if you missed THAT point, well... -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr