afo@pucc-k (Flidais(finder of lost beasties)) (10/17/84)
(watch where you point that cuisinart!)
Random thoughts on religion, morality and the like....
About five years back (when I was a much nicer person than I am now), a friend
of mine who had recently 'seen the light' came to visit. In between playing
rather loud Swedish gospel music on my stereo, she tried to, ahem, convert me.
Among her arguments were; even though I had the 'strongest set of morals she
had ever seen' (I told you it was a long time ago) I would most certainly
burn in hell because I had not accepted jesus christ as my personal saviour.
Now, my first response was that since she was a guest at my place, I really
didn't need the hassle. Also, I thought that the christian group has a
rather bizarre set of criterion for saving people. When I asked her if a
child in India who had never heard of her saviour, and died without ever havingheard of her saviour, would burn in hell, she said yes. When I asked her if
a Buddhist monk, never having harmed anyone in his life would burn in hell,
she said yes. Amazing. You can burn in hell for not being in the right place
at the right time....
A long, long time back (when I was even nicer), the kids in the neighborhood
and I would play games in the street at night (kick the can, four-square).
Anyway, about every May, we would be deluged with students from the local
baptist high school. They apparently had to 'save' x number of people to
graduate from the high school. These people didn't even have any concept of
what they were doing. They just wandered up, asked if we knew that when we
died, it we were going to hell or heaven, and if we had accepted jesus christ
in our lives. It got to be a game to see how many times we were going to be
saved in a given month.
Then again, this church was known for giving away shetland ponies to the
children who brought in the most friends for sunday school.
Well, the jist of this is that the fundamentalist movement appears to have
a rather odd idea of what you need to be a *good* person. Apparently
inherent morality isn't worth anything. It is the acceptance of *their*
god into your life which makes all the difference. They qualify this
arguement bythe supposition that those who are 'saved' will naturally act
better and nicer than those who haven't been saved (holy albeginsian, batman!).It appears, in their frenzy to 'save' souls (is that like plaid stamps?), they
have gotten their own morality distilled into a mere meaningless chanting of
words.
maybe instead, to try and prove what a difference it has made in their lives,
they might try following the tenets of Zoroaster (a well known non-christian),
'good thoughts, good words, good deeds'.
Think about it......
Laurie Sefton
{decvax,ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!pur-ee!pucc-k!afo
But honey, I need something I can use around the officeagz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/17/84)
Thank you, Laurie. This is the point that I have been trying to get
across all along, it's just I can't word things quite that well.
Here's to burning in hell if you can't accept it ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz
Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's what you get for pretending the danger's not real ... "ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/18/84)
(+-+-+-+-+-+) Laurie writes, > About five years back (when I was a much nicer person than I am now), a friend > of mine who had recently 'seen the light' came to visit. In between playing > rather loud Swedish gospel music on my stereo, she tried to, ahem, convert me. > Among her arguments were; even though I had the 'strongest set of morals she > had ever seen' (I told you it was a long time ago) I would most certainly > burn in hell because I had not accepted jesus christ as my personal saviour. She was right. > Now, my first response was that since she was a guest at my place, I really > didn't need the hassle. Also, I thought that the christian group has a > rather bizarre set of criterion for saving people. When I asked her if a > child in India who had never heard of her saviour, and died without ever having > heard of her saviour, would burn in hell, she said yes. When I asked her if > a Buddhist monk, never having harmed anyone in his life would burn in hell, > she said yes. Amazing. You can burn in hell for not being in the right place > at the right time.... You burn in hell for your rebellion against God. The rebellion you were born with. God, in His omnipotence will take care of the child and the monk. If they are searching for God, they will be rewarded in finding Christ (the only way to heaven). > A long, long time back (when I was even nicer), the kids in the neighborhood > and I would play games in the street at night (kick the can, four-square). > Anyway, about every May, we would be deluged with students from the local > baptist high school. They apparently had to 'save' x number of people to > graduate from the high school. These people didn't even have any concept of > what they were doing. They just wandered up, asked if we knew that when we > died, it we were going to hell or heaven, and if we had accepted jesus christ > in our lives. It got to be a game to see how many times we were going to be > saved in a given month. That was not a very good approach to use on a child, to be sure. But they were basically right in there motives for doing it. They didn't want to see little children live without the joy of accepting Christ. > Then again, this church was known for giving away shetland ponies to the > children who brought in the most friends for sunday school. That is strange!! > Well, the jist of this is that the fundamentalist movement appears to have > a rather odd idea of what you need to be a *good* person. Apparently > inherent morality isn't worth anything. That is absolutely right. Why should you get to make the standards that you live by. The Bible says, "There is a way that seemeth right to a man, and the end thereof is death." Your 'good' deeds are nothing but dirty rags in the sight of a holy God. Nothing you do is going to make you deserving of anything from God but death and punishment in hell forever and ever. > It is the acceptance of *their* > god into your life which makes all the difference. Right again. At least you know what we beleive. Since there is no way that we can reach God's standards on our own, and the result of this is punishment in Hell, God sent His son, Jesus Christ to satisfy the anger of God towards our sin. However, in order to become justified in God's sight, we must first accept the gift that God gave in the form of Jesus. Doing this involves: 1. Admiting you are a sinner by birth and by choice, and that you can nothing to get rid of your sin. Then you repent (turn from) that sin and ask God to forgive that attitude of rebellion against God that you were born with. 2. You must beleive that Jesus Christ was who He said He was, God's son. He was 100% man and 100% God (not logical, but true). This means beleiving that Jesus Christ is deity. 3. Accept the fact that Jesus Christ came and died because of YOUR sin. His death satisfied the debt that you owed to God because of your rebellion against Him. Recongnize that there is absolutely no other means to reach God or to be saved. 4. Receive Christ into your life. This means that because you beleive 3 above you want Christ to become a real part of your life. You thank Him because of the price He paid for your sin, and you want Him to control your life in return. This is the difference between Christianity and other religions. We are given the opportunity to have a relationship with the God of the universe in the person of Jesus Christ. A friendship, if you will, with the Saviour of the world. 5. Make Jesus the Lord of your life. You express the desire for Him to be the ruler of your life instead of yourself. This does not come easy. You will gradually turn different areas of your life other to the Lord as you continue in your Christian walk, but you should start at salvation by relinquishing your pride in yourself with the joy of your new relationship with God. This is the meaning of the phrase 'receive Christ as your personal saviour.' > They qualify this > arguement by the supposition that those who are 'saved' will naturally act > better and nicer than those who haven't been saved (holy albeginsian, batman!) Because of Christ involvement in your life, and your williness to let Him have control, you will naturally (supernaturally?) become 'better' and 'nicer'. Something I'd like to point out here is now that you are saved, the 'good' deeds you did in the past, will now be *GOOD* deeds if you do them now. Now they are done for the right reasons (out of love for God, and His gift to you). > It appears, in their frenzy to 'save' souls (is that like plaid stamps?), they > have gotten their own morality distilled into a mere meaningless chanting of > words. Man's morality is worth nothing in the sight of a holy and just God. > maybe instead, to try and prove what a difference it has made in their lives, > they might try following the tenets of Zoroaster (a well known non-christian), > 'good thoughts, good words, good deeds'. All this follows after you have become saved. Having turned your life over to the Lord will cause the good thoughts about Him to be expressed in good words and deeds. > Think about it...... > > Laurie Sefton > {decvax,ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!pur-ee!pucc-k!afo > But honey, I need something I can use around the office I hope you will think about it again. Being saved, that is. "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ---------
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/19/84)
The question of what happens to dead-non-christians is by no means settled. The NT largely punts on the question of virtuous non-believers, tending to divide people into believers, "sinners", and the desparate. I do agree with the principle that no man is good enough to "deserve" salvation. On the other hand, my moral sense is offended at the idea that a bunch eskimos are going to get off easy, while someone having the bad luck to be born in the USA is going to "burn". I also don't like the mercenary aspect of conversion due to fear of hell-fire. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus can do whatever he wants to save those who choose to turn their backs on what many rightly perceive as being a hotbed of intolerance and hypocrisy. I suspect that a man who condemns christendom for all the evil it has done is more likely to be saved than the likes of Falwell and the other Elmer Gantrys that plague us now. I may disagree with such a man, but that's another story. And besides, who gave any man the right or ability to discern who is not going to inherit eternal life? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Jesus Wept."
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/20/84)
Ken, You obviously have some pretty set beliefs, and I'm not here to try to tell you that you should change them. I am going to comment on my feelingson them. They differ from yours a fair amount, and I hope you realize that I'm not condemning you for them. >Laurie writes, >> ... I would most certainly >> burn in hell because I had not accepted jesus christ as my personal saviour. > >She was right. My, you must be in on something that the rest of the world isn't. I have no complaint if these are your own beliefs, but to make a statement that this is FACT is going just a little too far! Not all the world accepts these facts, and I see no reason they should. These are beliefs, not facts. Each person has their own beliefs. Facts are undeniable truths. The two are not the same, and I don't see any reason to try to say that ones own beliefs are factual, except to simply better his argument. > You burn in hell for your rebellion against God. The rebellion you were born > with. God, in His omnipotence will take care of the child and the monk. If > they are searching for God, they will be rewarded in finding Christ (the only > way to heaven). And just what is rebellion against God? Which God are we talking about here? There are as many Gods as there are people in the world, simply because each one has their own vision of what God is. Even if you don't believe in a God, you probably have a pretty good concept in your own head of what a God would be or do. It irks me when other people try to push their God on me. Why should I believe in their God? If I have my own, and don't have any complaints, nobody has to "save" me from anything. There is nothing of danger out there, I don't need to be "saved" from some terrible "burning" that is going to happen when I die. >> Anyway, about every May, we would be deluged with students from the local >> baptist high school. They apparently had to 'save' x number of people to >> graduate from high school. >> It got to be a game to see how many times we were going to be >> saved in a given month. > > That was not a very good approach to use on a child, to be sure. But they > were basically right in there motives for doing it. They didn't want to > see little children live without the joy of accepting Christ. "They were basically right in there [sic] motives for doing it."?!! It seems to me that a major problem with "Christianity", when viewed this way is, that it IS a game to see how many people you can wheedle into your way of thinking but nothing more than scare tactics. I realize this probably is going to be planty of flame food for you out there, but what other way is there to explain it? >> Well, the jist of this is that the fundamentalist movement appears to have >> a rather odd idea of what you need to be a *good* person. Apparently >> inherent morality isn't worth anything. > > That is absolutely right. Why should you get to make the standards that you > live by. The Bible says, "There is a way that seemeth right to a man, and > the end thereof is death." Your 'good' deeds are nothing but dirty rags in > the sight of a holy God. Nothing you do is going to make you deserving of > anything from God but death and punishment in hell forever and ever. If this is what you and your "God" advocate, I'm not sure that I would want to even try to argue with you. I don't really feel there is anything after this life, then what harm are good deeds during this life going to do? If I feel good being kind to others, then isn't that enough for me (obviously not for you) to make myself happy while I'm alive on Earth? Why do you feel this need to change me? >> It is the acceptance of *their* >> god into your life which makes all the difference. > > Right again. At least you know what we beleive. Since there is no way that > we can reach God's standards on our own, and the result of this is punishment > in Hell, God sent His son, Jesus Christ to satisfy the anger of God towards > our sin. However, in order to become justified in God's sight, we must first > accept the gift that God gave in the form of Jesus. Doing this involves: > 1. Admiting you are a sinner ... blah blah blah ... > This is the meaning of the phrase 'receive Christ as your personal saviour.' You hit it right on the head ... "you know what we believe." Right, we know what you believe. But that is no reason for us to accept it as out own belief. You give us a list of things to do to be like you. What if we don't want to be like you? What if we are happy the way we are? I think I'd feel pretty miserable if my one purpose in life would be to make other people believe like I do. If they believe something different, and I can't prove them wrong, why should I interfere? You can't prove your position is right. You obvously feel that you are right. Why can't we just say "I'm OK, You're OK", and leave it at that. > Something I'd like to point out here is now that you are saved, the 'good' > deeds you did in the past, will now be *GOOD* deeds if you do them now. Now > they are done for the right reasons (out of love for God, and His gift to > you). If I do a "good" deed, it isn't because I'm showing off to a God, it's because I wanted to do it, because I wanted to feel good about it myself and maybe have someone else feel good about it. It wasn't because I had to, or because if I don't, I won't be "saved". It is because I wanted to do it. >>It appears, in their frenzy to 'save' souls (is that like plaid stamps?), they >> have gotten their own morality distilled into a mere meaningless chanting of >> words. > > Man's morality is worth nothing in the sight of a holy and just God. I find it a bit hard to believe that anyone would ever admit that their morality was "mere meaningless chanting of words.", but I guess you just did it. If that's what you want, who am I to complain? > All this follows after you have become saved. Having turned your life over to > the Lord will cause the good thoughts about Him to be expressed in good words > and deeds. I seriously doubt that whenever someone does a good deed, they say "Hey, that was just a good thought for my God." Then again, there probably are people like that. If they do "good deeds", than I guess I shouldn't question their motivation. Whatever. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "A kind word and a gun will get you a lot more than a kind word."
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/28/84)
> The question of what happens to dead-non-christians is by no means settled. > The NT largely punts on the question of virtuous non-believers, tending to > divide people into believers, "sinners", and the desparate. The best interpretation of the Christian ethic I've ever found is not in the Bible at all, but in Dante's works 'The Inferno', 'The Purgatorio', and 'The Paradisio'. Hell is a series of circles to which the sinners are sent based upon the evil of their sins. The outermost circle is reserved for the pious pagans-- their eternal damnation was simply that they lived died without accepting the Christian God and therefore were denied access to heaven. I went into the books because they are very interesting from a literature viewpoint; I found that they also helped clarify for myself many of the reasons why I turned my back on the Christian pantheon and the Bible as the basis for my religious beliefs. The God that I see in the Bible is not so much something that man was created in the image of; He was created in the image of man, with all of the pettyness and foibles and jealousies of man. A true God doesn't NEED you to worship Him, He wants you to worship him. There are many very positive teachings in the work of Jesus-- unfortunately most of his 'followers' tend to be very selective in following them. > I do agree with > the principle that no man is good enough to "deserve" salvation. I disagree. Every person born deserves salvation. Whether or not they earn it is another matter. There is no free ride to salvation, and no other person or being can take your sins from you. You don't ride to heaven on others coatails... > And besides, who gave any man the right or ability to discern who is not > going to inherit eternal life? The ONLY one who will be able to know if someone is going to heaven or not is that person themselves. If you can look over your entire life and honestly say to yourself and your God 'I am a good person' then you deserve it. Not 'I was a perfect person' or 'I always did right' or 'I went to church on Sundays' (with the VCR taping the Rams game, of course), but if, on balance, you did more good than harm. Nothing else really matters in the end. -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
mikevp@proper.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (10/29/84)
re: "A REAL God wouldn't NEED our worship". Of course not. And exactly that statement is made over and over again in the Old Testament: God doen't need us or anything we've got. But he loves us anyway. I think worship is really much more for the benefit of the worshipers -- it helps us keep things in their proper perspective.
ag5@pucc-i (Dish of the Day) (10/29/84)
<<Fire and limestone! Oh, boy!>>
.>Zonker T. tells us about Dante . . .
.>The best interpretation of the Christian ethic I've ever found is not in
.>the Bible at all, but in Dante's works 'The Inferno', 'The Purgatorio', and
.>'The Paradisio'. Hell is a series of circles to which the sinners are sent
.>based upon the evil of their sins. The outermost circle is reserved for the
.>pious pagans-- their eternal damnation was simply that they lived died
.>without accepting the Christian God and therefore were denied access to
.>heaven.
Too bad he didn't point out that, in "The Inferno," I believe that
one can find the Pope in the deepest (innermost) of the series of circles
of hell. So much for skeletons in the closet!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
{allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hit me with your laser beam!"mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/29/84)
In article <1730@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) writes: [>> = me, > = Chuq] >> I do agree with >> the principle that no man is good enough to "deserve" salvation. > I disagree. Every person born deserves salvation. Whether or not they earn > it is another matter. There is no free ride to salvation, and no other > person or being can take your sins from you. You don't ride to heaven on > others coatails... I think we mean the same thing, in a way. I should have said that no man earns salvation by being good; obviously mankind in general is worth salvation. Why else would God have gone through all the trouble of being crucified? >> And besides, who gave any man the right or ability to discern who is not >> going to inherit eternal life? > The ONLY one who will be able to know if someone is going to heaven or > not is that person themselves. If you can look over your entire life and > honestly say to yourself and your God 'I am a good person' then you deserve > it. Not 'I was a perfect person' or 'I always did right' or 'I went to > church on Sundays' (with the VCR taping the Rams game, of course), but if, > on balance, you did more good than harm. Nothing else really matters in the > end. I'll go along with this, except I must add the qualification that a lot of people have blinded themselves to the evil they do, and therefore are no judge of "how well they're doing." Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/03/84)
In article <485@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@maryland.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >> = Chuq >> The ONLY one who will be able to know if someone is going to heaven or >> not is that person themselves. If you can look over your entire life and >> honestly say to yourself and your God 'I am a good person' then you deserve >> it. > >I'll go along with this, except I must add the qualification that a lot of >people have blinded themselves to the evil they do, and therefore are no >judge of "how well they're doing." Agreed-- It is my feeling that the gatekeeper characterization that is familiar to most pantheons (St. Peter, for example) is there specifically to remove this blindness and show you what you really are; stripped of rationalizations and blindspots and unable to hide from yourself you are then asked whether or not you deserve salvation. -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/05/84)
>[Andy Banta] >Ken, >You obviously have some pretty set beliefs, and I'm not here to try to >tell you that you should change them. I am going to comment on my >feelingson them. They differ from yours a fair amount, and I hope you >realize that I'm not condemning you for them. > > >>Laurie writes, > >>> ... I would most certainly >>> burn in hell because I had not accepted jesus christ as my personal saviour. >> >>She was right. > >My, you must be in on something that the rest of the world isn't. I have >no complaint if these are your own beliefs, but to make a statement that >this is FACT is going just a little too far! Not all the world accepts >these facts, and I see no reason they should. These are beliefs, not >facts. Each person has their own beliefs. Facts are undeniable truths. >The two are not the same, and I don't see any reason to try to say that >ones own beliefs are factual, except to simply better his argument. Prove it. Turn your own argument on itself and see how much you believe it. >It irks me when other people try to >push their God on me. Why should I believe in their God? If I have my >own, and don't have any complaints, nobody has to "save" me from >anything. There is nothing of danger out there, I don't need to be >"saved" from some terrible "burning" that is going to happen when I die. There's a rather loud assumption in that last statment. See previous comment. >>> Anyway, about every May, we would be deluged with students from the local >>> baptist high school. They apparently had to 'save' x number of people to >>> graduate from high school. >>> It got to be a game to see how many times we were going to be >>> saved in a given month. >> >> That was not a very good approach to use on a child, to be sure. But they >> were basically right in there motives for doing it. They didn't want to >> see little children live without the joy of accepting Christ. > >"They were basically right in there [sic] motives for doing it."?!! It >seems to me that a major problem with "Christianity", when viewed this >way is, that it IS a game to see how many people you can wheedle into >your way of thinking but nothing more than scare tactics. I realize this >probably is going to be planty of flame food for you out there, but what >other way is there to explain it? Your lack of understanding, perhaps. Ken isn't trying to scare anyone into Hell; he knows that that doesn't work. Ken has been stating what he (and, obviously, I) know (excuse me!) to be the state of man's relationship to God before and after salvation. Fear and terror need have nothing to do with stating a proposition. >>> Well, the jist of this is that the fundamentalist movement appears to have >>> a rather odd idea of what you need to be a *good* person. Apparently >>> inherent morality isn't worth anything. >> >> That is absolutely right. Why should you get to make the standards that you >> live by. The Bible says, "There is a way that seemeth right to a man, and >> the end thereof is death." Your 'good' deeds are nothing but dirty rags in >> the sight of a holy God. Nothing you do is going to make you deserving of >> anything from God but death and punishment in hell forever and ever. > >If this is what you and your "God" advocate, I'm not sure that I would >want to even try to argue with you. I don't really feel there is >anything after this life, then what harm are good deeds during this life You don't feel there's an afterlife? How do you know? It's easy enough to say that Christians can't prove that there *is* an afterlife, but what can you say in defense of your own proposition? >going to do? If I feel good being kind to others, then isn't that enough >for me (obviously not for you) to make myself happy while I'm alive on >Earth? Why do you feel this need to change me? Perhaps because God says that we all need to be changed. You may not (and, I assume, do not) admit that our deeds are filthy rags in the sight of God, but surely you can agree that *if* our deeds are such, we need to be changed (not, note, to change, but *to be* changed). >You hit it right on the head ... "you know what we believe." Right, we >know what you believe. But that is no reason for us to accept it as our >own belief. You give us a list of things to do to be like you. What if Pshaw. Ken hasn't tried to convince anyone to be *like him*. To the extent that every Christian is conformed to the image of Christ, and to the extent that Ken in particular is so conformed, anyone who becomes a Christian will become *like Ken*, but that is a coincidental result, not the primary end. The primary end is to manifest Godliness in our conformity to Christ. To put it another way (and perhaps reopen a past discussion), to manifest saintliness. >we don't want to be like you? What if we are happy the way we are? I >think I'd feel pretty miserable if my one purpose in life would be to >make other people believe like I do. If they believe something >different, and I can't prove them wrong, why should I interfere? You >can't prove your position is right. You obvously feel that you are Can you prove your own position? Hardly. >right. Why can't we just say "I'm OK, You're OK", and leave it at that. Tell it to God. He will say to you, just as He did to myself and Ken, "I'm OK, you're not." >If I do a "good" deed, it isn't because I'm showing off to a God, it's >because I wanted to do it, because I wanted to feel good about it myself >and maybe have someone else feel good about it. It wasn't because I had >to, or because if I don't, I won't be "saved". It is because I wanted to >do it. You're remarkably close to Christian doctrine here. The missing piece is that we do good deeds not just because we want to, but because it is a good way of showing our love for God. >> Man's morality is worth nothing in the sight of a holy and just God. > >I find it a bit hard to believe that anyone would ever admit that their >morality was "mere meaningless chanting of words.", but I guess you just >did it. If that's what you want, who am I to complain? Ken didn't say "mere meaningless chanting of words", you did, by way of setting up a straw man. As for finding it hard to admit this about our morality is meaningless, I guess I would ask, "why?" Really - why? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
afo@pucc-h (Flidais ) (11/12/84)
> Tell it to God. He will say to you, just as He did to myself and > Ken, "I'm OK, you're not." To quote a famous person: ~I'm O.K., You're so-so~ --- God Need I say more? Chuqui, visiting the Eastern Annex