rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray) (05/30/84)
******* One of the greatest thinkers of all time was Saul of Tarsus. His conversion on the ancient Damascus Highway has spawned faith in thousands of hearts through the centuries. He is often remembered for his intellectual talent. Although Paul stressed the spiritual and did not exalt the power of human intellect, he was without equal. He could face the boastful man with questions that could not be answered and answers which could not be questioned. He astonished them with the greatest equation of all ages - God's plan of salvation. Paul wrote these words in I Co 1:1 - "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God...hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" However, we must realize that not every person has had the experience of Paul. Many of our teenagers and college students are wrestling with scientific concepts calculated to totter their spiritual heritage. What do we answer to those of you who have been struggling with these problems? Are we going to merely dismiss the aarguments of the critics with a wave of a hand? Or, can we furnish you real reason for accepting the Bible as the word of God? Emphatically, *YES*! There is enough proof to convince even the most skeptical, if he will open his mind. ( to be continued ) Ray Jender ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1
rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray) (05/31/84)
******* Let's start with this. One of the great misconceptions which has haunted the human race teaches that the Bible cannot be reconciled with the discoveries of science. This kind of proof is given: We are told that the Bible teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Then we are told that geological discovery with the atomic age tool of radioactive carbon dating has proved that the earth is actually millions of years old. Thus we are told that the Bible is wrong! But the fact is, the Bible DOES NOT say the earth is only a few thousand years old. It doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void". Most scholars agree that there was a great time lapse between verses 1 and 2. God did not originally create the earth "without form and void". He created it a thing of beauty, a prolific planet. But it is evident that there were some extensive geological overthrows which took place, causing it to become "without form and void". Science bears this out, and has given us names for these various ages prior to the creation of man--Genozoic, Mesozoic, Jurasic, Cambrian, etc. The Bible is in total harmony with true Science! There was a time when some scientists challenged the Bible story of a major, world-wide flood. But now geology is uncovering much evidence that present continents were at one time submerged. We have discovered ancient writtings from every continent and virtually every civilization. All tell of a great flood which destroyed man off the face of the earth. Many bear striking resemblance to the story in the Bible. The amazing thing about the Bible it that it is as up to date today as it was one thousand years ago. In 1861 the French Academy of Science published a book stating fifty-one "scientific" facts that seemed to contradict the Word of God. It was very impressive when published. Yet today, every one of these fifty-one "facts" has been found to be unscientific! There isn't a scientist alive who believes them. And the Bible stands! The Bible has proven to be history written in advance. Could you imagine a newspaper publishing next years additions today with uncanny accuracy? Here's just one example...there are hundreds! The Prophet Ezekiel lived 600 years before Christ. One of his unbelievable prophecies was against Egypt. He said the land would lie utterly waste and desolate for forty years. Then, they would return to their land. But, they would never exalt themselves as a truly great nation again. Ezekiel 30:13 said God would take the family of Pharaoh off the throne. From then on, Egypt would be ruled by foreigners. Babylon the Great arose. King Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. For years the land lay desolate. Later, the Egyptians returned, but true to prophecy, never became a great nation again. And what about Ezekiel's prophecy that, "There shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt"? Since the Persians conquered Egypt, there has never again been a native Egyptian King! First the Greeks ruled. Later, the Romans. Then the Mohammedans, then the Turks, then the French, then the British. Today, the rulers of Egypt are not native Egyptians, but ARABS. God said a prince of Egypt would never sit on the throne again. And for 2,500 years the prophecy has held true! ( to be continued ) Ray Jender ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1
rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray) (05/31/84)
******* Until late in the 19th century there was no proof outside the Bible, that an ancient Hittite civilization ever existed. Naturally, some of the so called "experts" said it was just another Biblical fable. But in 1906, Hugo Winckler discovered and excavated the ancient Hittite capitol and recovered several thousand Hittite scrolls! Amazing thing about it, at least to them, is that the discoveries bore out the accuracy of the Bible. They learned that according to Hittite law and business practice, every sale of property was to list the trees included in the sale. Genesis 23:17 tells us that when Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah, the sale included "all the trees which were on the field". Chapters 37 through 50 of Genesis are now considered some of the most valuable historical material in existence. Archeological discoveries in recent years have shown that these chapters reveal an intimate knowledge of Egypt. They include Egyptian loan words, names, titles and customs. The more we search and dig, the more we discover the Bible to be true. A recent report carried in the Los Angeles Examiner was captioned "Paydirt Hit in Noah's Ark Hunt". It said that in 1915 a Russian pilot spotted an ark frozen in the ice on the exact mountain specified in the Scriptures. After World War I, a team of Russian soldiers struggled through Arctic weather conditions to examine it. They found it to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, corresponding with the Bible description. Photographs were made. However, much of this information was lost during the Communist takeover of Russia. The Scripture says that Jesus entered Jericho and there encounterred Zacchaeus in a Sycamore tree. The "experts" said this was impossible. Wellhausen, Bultmann, Gilmour, and others said there were no trees in Jerico. Luke was wrong. But since then, we have discovered the ruins of Jericho. We have found that it had streets and public places were shade trees could flourish. In fact, a piece of ancient wood found in the excavation has been identified. You guessed it-Sycamore! You just can't win! The Bible stands true again! The coming of Jesus Christ to earth was no unannounced happenstance. Throughout the Old Testament His coming had been foretold. Micah said He would be born in Bethlehem. Isaiah said he would be born of a virgin, rejected by the Jews and crucified. Zechariah forsaw His triumphal entry. The Psalmist David revealed He would be betrayed by a friend, given gall and vinegar, pierced in His hands and feet and that men would gamble for His garments. The Bible foretold that He would be sold for thirty pieces of silver. Within thirty-three years He had come and gone. But no man ever left such a mark upon the world. Libraries of books have been written about Him. It would be impossible to estimate the millions of songs which have been sung, prayers which have been prayed, and lives which have been changed...in Jesus' Name! The earth has recieved the blood of thousands of martyrs who gave their last full measure of devotion. The New Testament is filled with prophecies of our own day. Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars. He prophecied earthquakes and tidal waves. He prophecied a state of political turbulance and emotional upheaval. He said mens hearts would be failing them for fear. The Bible says that evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. Israel was to become a nation again and recapture Old Jerusalem. How true all these have proven! Can the thinking man accept the Bible? Oh I think he can. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". When you stand and gaze in awe of a skyscraper, you know there was an architect; you know there were those who constructed it. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork." He spake the galaxies into existence. He kindled the atomic fires of a billion stars. He jarred the mountains upward and carved out the valleys. He designed the symmetrical snowflake and cemented the atom. He covered the fields with flowers and trees of a thousand varieties. He created animal living ranging from invisible insects to thundering herds. He placed the zenith of His creation upon the earth and called him man. He placed His never dying soul in a body equipped with camera, microphone, amplifiers, computers, thermostats, and chemical factories. God gave man a will of his own and a mind of his own. God offers to shape man's destiny as He shaped him physically, but He leaves the choice to each of us. "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." "The heavens declare the glory of God." "Come now, let us reason together saith the Lord." What will an intelligent man do about the Bible? Will he accept it? Will he obey it? Will he be born again in the way it explains? As man begins to walk in the light of the Gospels, only then will he receive it's benefit. Then and only then will he realize altogether why this is the only intelligent thing for man to do! THE END Ray Jender ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1 PS: Comments, questions, or critisisms welcome.
tims@mako.UUCP (06/04/84)
> The New Testament is filled with prophecies of our own day. > Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars. > He prophecied earthquakes and tidal waves. He prophecied a state of > political turbulance and emotional upheaval. He said mens hearts > would be failing them for fear. The Bible says that evil men and seducers > will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. When were there no wars and no rumors of war? When have there been no earthquakes and tidal waves? When has there not been political turbulence and emotional upheaval? Since when haven't evil men been getting worse and worse? You call this prophecy, I call it tautology. Why DOESN'T this great bible predict or say anything real about our own times, something that might substantiate christianity. Insted, the only possible things in the bible that could substantiate christianity are unexaminable because they are either too far in the past, or supposedly coming the the future (2nd coming), or after death, none of this stuff can be examined. I submit this a large reason for christianity's, and several other religion's survival. CAN ANYONE GIVE SOME EXAMINABLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE CHRISTIANITY?
heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/04/84)
I am responding to the article titled "Can a thinking man accept the Bible? Parts 1 through 3" because, as a thinking man and an ex-christian, I can not accept the premise that a thinking man with a truly open mind can accept the Bible as fact. It is not. It may well be an excellent system of myths that has comforted millions in times of trouble by providing them with a better understanding of themselvs and of their universe, but a compedium of absolute fact it is not. Anyone with a through knowledge of the peoples, cultures, belief systems, and history of the world will accept the bible for what it is; a complex system of partly if not wholly barrowed myths with just enough histroy thrown in to fool the ignorant. (I am not saying that all christians are ignorant, just the ones that believe the bible word for word). I will also divide my article into at least three parts because it would otherwise get quickly out of hand. Also I would give those who are uninterested in this discussion a chance to skip any or all parts that they wish. In this first part I will reply to Mr. Jender's opening article. This first part will consist mostly of my own opinions as Mr. Jender's seemed to do the same. > One of the greatest thinkers of all time was Saul of Tarsus. According to who? I don't belive that an objective Who's Who of philosophers, thinkers, and intellectuals would place him very high on the list, if it would even list him at all. In all my years of sunday school, youth group bible study, and church services I never once heard Paul praised for his intellectual prowess. A great *christian* thinker he may have been, and prolific he certainly was, even if only half of the alleged Pauline letters are apocryphal as most biblical historions agree that they are (see The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul by Wayne A. Meeks, published by Yale University Press 1983). > He could face the boastful man with questions that could not be answered and answers which could not be questioned. How do we know that Paul was such a great debator? After all only the debates he won are recorded in the bible. And these were recorded by him or by his desiples, people with a vested interest in showing Paul to be a great man. Paul was a fanatic, and a fanatic's words are not to be taken at face value. > Many of our teenagers and college students are wrestling with > scientific concepts calculated to totter their spiritual heritage. I doubt very seriously the concepts of science are calculated to totter their spiritual heritage. The concepts of science are merely conlusions drawn by intelligent curious people from their own observations and those of others of the world around them. Many scientists are themselves devoute christians and are certainly not out to prove there own beliefs wrong. Nor are they trying to justify their beliefs through science. As a collegue of mine said while discussing Mr. Jender's article: "Anyone who trys to prove the bible with science is missing the point of the bible." > What do we answer to those of you who have been struggling with > these problems? Are we going to merely dismiss the aarguments of the critics > with a wave of a hand? Or, can we furnish you real reason for accepting the > Bible as the word of God? Emphatically, *YES*! There is enough proof to > convince even the most skeptical, if he will open his mind. I am no where near the most skeptical (a friend of mine holds that title), but if there is real reason for accepting the bible as the word of God then I haven't seen it. My mind is as open as your's is Mr. Jender (probably more so), if there is enough proof to convince even the most skeptical, then trot it out. Parts 2 and 3 of your article certainly did not provide it. In the following parts of my article I will try to refute the proofs offered point by point. ( to be continued ) -- Yrs. in Fear and Loathing, The Blue Buffalo Haunted by the - /\ /\ / /~~~~~~\ \ ( ( \ / ) ) \ [~] [~] / \ / || \ / \ /||\ / ~~~ G \(^^)/ ) o h `--'\ ( z o \) n s o t of G ...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd
heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/04/84)
> Let's start with this. One of the great misconceptions which > has haunted the human race teaches that the Bible cannot be reconciled with > the discoveries of science. This kind of proof is given: We are told > that the Bible teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old. > Then we are told that geological discovery with the atomic age tool > of radioactive carbon dating has proved that the earth is actually > millions of years old. Thus we are told that the Bible is wrong! We are told that Bishop Usher calculated that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. by adding up the ages of the patriarchs given in Genesis, not that this is what the bible teaches. The church used the Bishop's calculations as an argument against the new science of geology and the theory of evaloution (note I said *theory*, not fact). Not until science had proven that the earth is certainly more than a few thousand years old did the idea that Genesis is al- legorical become accepted by the church. Thus, the "great misconception" Mr. Jender sites was created and preserved by the church, not by science. > But the fact is, the Bible DOES NOT say the earth is only a > few thousand years old. It doesn't say how old the earth is. > Genesis 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the > earth, and the earth was without form and void". > Most scholars agree that there was a great time lapse between verses > 1 and 2. God did not originally create the earth "without form and void". > He created it a thing of beauty, a prolific planet. But it is evident > that there were some extensive geological overthrows which took place, > causing it to become "without form and void". > Science bears this out, and has given us names for these various ages > prior to the creation of man--Genozoic, Mesozoic, Jurasic, Cambrian, > etc. The Bible is in total harmony with true Science! Not hardly. For one thing, science says that after the earth had coalesced from the cosmic dust cloud that it was a ball of molten rock; about as void and without form as you can get this deep into the sun's gravity well. The earth did not become a thing of beauty (unless you're into volcanos) until millions and millions of years later. And once life appeared on earth (through a series of chemical accidents, according to science, not through divine intervention as claimed by the bible), it stayed. > There was a time when some scientists challenged the Bible > story of a major, world-wide flood. But now geology is uncovering > much evidence that present continents were at one time submerged. > We have discovered ancient writtings from every continent and > virtually every civilization. All tell of a great flood which > destroyed man off the face of the earth. Many bear striking > resemblance to the story in the Bible. How sad that Mr. Jender has presented what seems to be an important argument to him without doing his homework properly. Geology has uncovered evidence for a flood in coastal areas of Mesopotamia, not that the present continents were submerged. If Mr. Jender had studied world mythology instead of rejecting it out of hand as pagan and therefore untrue, he would know that the Mesopotamien myths concerning the flood predate anything recorded in the bible. Saying that the story in the bible bears striking resemblance to the earlier myths is closer to the truth. > The amazing thing about the Bible it that it is as up to date > today as it was one thousand years ago. In 1861 the French Academy > of Science published a book stating fifty-one "scientific" facts > that seemed to contradict the Word of God. It was very impressive > when published. Yet today, every one of these fifty-one "facts" has > been found to be unscientific! There isn't a scientist alive who > believes them. And the Bible stands! The instance sited by Mr. Jender is what makes science more palatable then religion to the thinking man: as new facts come to light science eventually changes its doctrine. Disproving a set of 100-year old facts does not prove the bible. > The Bible has proven to be history written in advance. > Could you imagine a newspaper publishing next years additions today > with uncanny accuracy? Here's just one example...there are hundreds! > The Prophet Ezekiel lived 600 years before Christ. One of his > unbelievable prophecies was against Egypt. He said the land would > lie utterly waste and desolate for forty years. Then, they would return > to their land. But, they would never exalt themselves as a truly great > nation again. Ezekiel 30:13 said God would take the family of Pharaoh off > the throne. From then on, Egypt would be ruled by foreigners. > Babylon the Great arose. King Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. For > years the land lay desolate. Later, the Egyptians returned, but true to > prophecy, never became a great nation again. > And what about Ezekiel's prophecy that, "There shall be no more a prince > of the land of Egypt"? Since the Persians conquered Egypt, there has never > again been a native Egyptian King! First the Greeks ruled. Later, the Romans. > Then the Mohammedans, then the Turks, then the French, then the British. > Today, the rulers of Egypt are not native Egyptians, but ARABS. God > said a prince of Egypt would never sit on the throne again. And for 2,500 > years the prophecy has held true! I've seen no evidence that any thing in the bible was recorded before the events it relates. I maintain that the bible is merely recording what happened, not predicting it. As for this particular prophecy, it can be seen as true only if you do not count a native as some one born in a country. If that is the case, then there are very few native americans in this country (USA). And seeing as I was born here, I'm damned if I know what I might be a native of. I'm certainly not a native of Europe, I've never even been there. The only place I qualify as a native is the land I was born in. If being born in a country makes you a native of that country then Egypt is now ruled by a native Egyptian. -- Yrs. in Fear and Loathing, The Blue Buffalo Haunted by the - /\ /\ / /~~~~~~\ \ ( ( \ / ) ) \ [~] [~] / \ / || \ / \ /||\ / ~~~ G \(^^)/ ) o h `--'\ ( z o \) n s o t of G ...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd
stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (06/06/84)
> CAN ANYONE GIVE SOME EXAMINABLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE > CHRISTIANITY? There have been any number of challenges for evidence for Christianity recently. I'd like to speak from my own perspective: Lutheran (LCA -- for those who understand such detail), intellectual, and egalitarian. No, I can't give you any examinable, verifiable evidence to substantiate christianity, any more than you can give me examinable, verifiable evidence refuting christianity. To answer another question, I don't believe the objective evidence for christianity is obviously better than that for most of the other major religions of the world, or (as is implicit in the last sentence) no religion. This is not a concession. I simply think that you are asking the wrong questions. Science and theology are orthogonal. Using one in an attempt to analyze the other is misguided. Thus, I believe attempted "scientific" proofs and disproofs of the existence of God are as relevant to theology as the creation myth of Genesis is to explaining the origin of species. In the final analysis, you either believe or don't. The evidence in my life which leads me to my faith is neither examinable nor verifiable by a third party. I simply find my own life's experiences take meaning in the existence of God. The fact that I am Lutheran and not Jewish or Hindu is in all probability a historical accident; but I do find the teachings of Christ immediately relevant to *me*. I find the Christian theology intellectually exciting -- and to the extent I understand other religions, no other theology satisfies *me* so well. I scarcely expect that this will be the final word on the subject, but I would like to add my own plea for rationality. None of us are going to win any converts (to God/Humanism/Reason) over this net. This whole exercise in Christian/Atheist baiting does nothing but polish our ability to offend one another. I find discussions which explore the logical consequences of various beliefs more interesting than attacking those beliefs. For example: "Assuming Christ is raised, is his resurrection bodily or spiritual?" or even "Is the representation of Kalmari (sp?) in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' accurate to Hindu beliefs?" ---------------------------------------- Stuart Kurtz : Department of Computer Science ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart : The University of Chicago
heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/06/84)
> Until late in the 19th century there was no proof outside > the Bible, that an ancient Hittite civilization ever existed. > Naturally, some of the so called "experts" said it was just another > Biblical fable. But in 1906, Hugo Winckler discovered and excavated > the ancient Hittite capitol and recovered several thousand Hittite > scrolls! Amazing thing about it, at least to them, is that the > discoveries bore out the accuracy of the Bible. > Chapters 37 through 50 of Genesis are now considered some of the > most valuable historical material in existence. Archeological > discoveries in recent years have shown that these chapters > reveal an intimate knowledge of Egypt. They include Egyptian loan > words, names, titles and customs. Ok, so the bible contains some verifiable history. This hardly proves that it is the word of God. If this were the case, then my high school history text is a sacred book. It's not surprising that the bible is an important source of Egyptian history, after all the Hebrews spent a lot of time in Egypt. > The more we search and dig, the more we discover the Bible > to be true. A recent report carried in the Los Angeles Examiner was > captioned "Paydirt Hit in Noah's Ark Hunt". It said that in 1915 a > Russian pilot spotted an ark frozen in the ice on the exact mountain > specified in the Scriptures. After World War I, a team of Russian > soldiers struggled through Arctic weather conditions to examine it. > They found it to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, > corresponding with the Bible description. Photographs were made. However, > much of this information was lost during the Communist takeover of Russia. Mt Ararat is 16,946 feet high (a little over 3 miles) I'm not sure, but I don't think that any airplanes around in 1915 could fly that high. The communists had already taken over Russia by the end of WWI. Why would one of the most notoriously atheistic governments in history send soldiers to verify a biblical story? Also, since the communist revolution was virtually over at the time of this alleged expedition, how could any evidence it might have collected have been destroyed by an event that had already taken place? Even assuming that there was a boat of some sort on the mountain, the surviving timbers could hardly have been in good enough shape to take precise measurements. > The Scripture says that Jesus entered Jericho and there encounterred > Zacchaeus in a Sycamore tree. The "experts" said this was impossible. > Wellhausen, Bultmann, Gilmour, and others said there were no trees in Jerico. > Luke was wrong. > But since then, we have discovered the ruins of Jericho. We have found > that it had streets and public places were shade trees could flourish. > In fact, a piece of ancient wood found in the excavation has been identified. > You guessed it-Sycamore! You just can't win! The Bible stands true again! I almost tire of picking apart these flimsy arguments. But a job worth starting is worth finishing. The piece of wood found in the ruins of Jericho proves only the sycamore trees grew there. It doesn't provide one shred of evidence that a short man once perched there to view an itinerant preacher from Galilee. > The coming of Jesus Christ to earth was no unannounced happenstance. > Throughout the Old Testament His coming had been foretold. Micah said He > would be born in Bethlehem. Isaiah said he would be born of a virgin, > rejected by the Jews and crucified. Zechariah forsaw His triumphal entry. > The Psalmist David revealed He would be betrayed by a friend, given > gall and vinegar, pierced in His hands and feet and that men would > gamble for His garments. The Bible foretold that He would be sold > for thirty pieces of silver. Within thirty-three years He had come and > gone. But no man ever left such a mark upon the world. Libraries of > books have been written about Him. It would be impossible to estimate > the millions of songs which have been sung, prayers which have been > prayed, and lives which have been changed...in Jesus' Name! I've seen no evidence that any of the events described in the Gospels (save for the Roman census) actually took place. The earliest date I've seen for an actual written version of any of the gospels is c. 70 A.D. (source: The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia) for Mark. This leaves better than 30 years for legends about Jesus to spring up to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. In other words it is very easy to fulfill prophecies centurys after the prophecies were made and decades after their alleged fulfillment. In fact, the source sited above (The CCE) states that Matthew was written specifically to convince Jewish christians that Jesus was the messiah. This makes it more rhetoric than history. It would be impossible to estimate the millions of people that have been removed from their homeland, dragged from their houses and tortured, and the lives that have been taken...in Jesus' Name! > The earth has recieved the blood of thousands of martyrs who gave > their last full measure of devotion. Other men have given their lives in devotion to other causes. How about the founders of this country who plegged "...our lives, our fortunes, and our scared honor..." for a cause they believed in? Did the lives given at Jonestown make Jim Jones a messiah? Just because some people are willing to give their lives doesn't make their cause a holy one. > The New Testament is filled with prophecies of our own day. > Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars. > He prophecied earthquakes and tidal waves. He prophecied a state of > political turbulance and emotional upheaval. He said mens hearts > would be failing them for fear. The Bible says that evil men and seducers > will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. Israel was to > become a nation again and recapture Old Jerusalem. How true all these > have proven! As has been pointed out already, these prophecies sound like just about any time in human history. The people of Europe in 1000 A.D. must surely have felt that the world was about to end and expected to hear the final trumpet any minute. After all, the millennium was upon them, and Vikings were raiding and burning from Ireland to Kiev. They must have felt that the armys of Gog and Magog were upon them. It's very easy to apply vague prophicies to virtually any period in history. Actually, the prophecies listed above match the time of WWII better than they do our own time. (to be continued) -- Yrs. in Fear and Loathing, The Blue Buffalo Haunted by the - /\ /\ / /~~~~~~\ \ ( ( \ / ) ) \ [~] [~] / \ / || \ / \ /||\ / ~~~ G \(^^)/ ) o h `--'\ ( z o \) n s o t of G ...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd