Dawkins, evlutin and God

 How to answer  someone like Richard Dawkins who is so absolutely certain tht evolution is a fact and religion is false.  I say evolution is not a fact, it's full of holes scientifically , and I say that Christianity is absolutely THE truth that everyone should know whether they believe it or not because it's the only hope for their immortal souls after death.   

What does he mean by saying evolution is fact?  What proves it?  The fossil record?  Oh dear, as i said below that is a joke, quite silly when you think through the physical properties of the strata in qhich the fossils are embedded.  Radiometric dating?  Well, if true it would prove an ancient earth which really isn't proof of evolution as such, and i am not able to prove it wrong but I believe there are scientiest who can show that it is unreliable and shouldn't be trusted as it is anyway.

But I think he may just mean to appropriate some things tht are facts, the obvious variations in living things from generation to generation for instance, but that's not evolution at all.  They nevertheless say it is.  It's merelyu variation built into the genome of a given species.  That species can vary in many ways, but that's not the same thing as changing from that species into another species, which I've argued in my own way is genetically impossible.  Genes have two forms which is what allows their expression in the animal to vary as they can be sexually combined in many different ways, especially if there are many genes that govern a particular single trait as I think is the case.  But that's not evolution, that's just built in variation and it can happen only within the genome, it can't go beyond the genome.

I thihnk that is all he means.  It's what Darwin thought after all.  He could get some dramatic variations on the pigeons he bred and the fact he made use of in formulating evolution by natural selection, transferring the selective power from the human decion to circumstances in nature.  But even his own experiments came to an end, would reach a point beyond which they couldn't vary further.  Surely he noticed that fact.  Surely.  You can get pigeons with a great range of differences between them but you can't get anything that even remotely begins to look like something other than a pigeon.  Same with the finches he stsudied, their great variety of beak sizes and shapes, each suited to the gathering of a particular kind of food which became the identifying characteristic of a finch with a particular beak type.  Lots of different beaks, but nothing ever even remotely suggestive of anything other than a finch.  Not remotely.  Same body plan, as I argue elsewhere.

But he goes on believing these things and imposing them on all of us and doesn't want to take seriously objections made by creationists.    And on the other hand he doesn't want religionists to impose their beliefs on anyone because we can't given him satisfactory evidence for what we believe.  

what what what what what

I'It's so not a fact and yet they've got themselves convinced.

As for proving the realiy of god to someone like Dawkins, I hiknk i's probably imjpossible.  God Himself would have to prove Himself to him, as He does with all of us, there really isn't much anyoof us can say or sdo to make the case otherwise.  Wdee can try of course.  I can only go to the bible in the end because that is where god reveals Himself in the clearest way, and that is the purpose of the bible.  It is God's self-revelation to us.   We are fallen, having lost our ability to recognize God , which is a spiritual fuhnction we lost at the Fall, and that abolity beying absent Dawkins can't recognize God hismefl either.  But the Bible ws given to persuade us.  Many read it and still are not persuaded but the evidence is there nevertheless.  

And by the way, no other religion than the religion founded on the bible even makes an effort to prove the reality of God.  they assume god, they don't try to prove His existence.  The Bibble offers the testimony of hundreds and miracles and a coherent story line, a coherent plan of redemption, it all hangs together, it's all there.  

Probably tyhe best I can do.

One thing I like about the bible as evidence is that it knows us so well.  "The fool hasth said in his heart, There is no God."  Yup, that's what the fool says in his heart all right.  And it knows that it is hard for us to believe.  "Lord, I believe, help mine unbelief."  And it knows that a lot of us "stand in the path of sinners": an "six in the seat of the scoffers"  and even glory in our sins.  And how about the second half of the Ten Commandments where we are commanded not to mistreat our neightbor.  love thy neighbor as thyself.  Well that turns out to mean in the simplest terms what the second hafl of the ten commandments tell isus not to do:  don't murder or harm your neighbor, don't lie to your neighbor, don't steal from your neighbor, don't commit adultery with your neighbor or his spouse, don't covet his property.   We can all recognize those violations against our neighbor.  And right now they are particular rampantly violated in the world or so it seems.

Then there is The fear of God is the beginning of widsdom.  And maybe that's a more fruitful place to start if you want to try to prove the existence of God.  beause it is possible to noti ce, ans the proverbs tells us to notice, that there are consequen es for our sins that come in the form of events that nobody in particular could orchestrate, so have to gcoe from od.  And that is a sort of proof of god.If we fear God we will avoid doing the things that would call down his wrath on us.  that's wisdom.Proves there is something in the unicverse that acts.

Olympics Woke Craziness

 I hadn't watched the Olympics for decades and wasn't expcting to watch the event in Paris either, especially after hearing about the blasphemous opening ceremonies, the mockeriy of the Last Supper painting by Da Vinci.  But then some of the performances started showing up on my You tube page and that got me into some of it, mostly the women's gynmanastics but also some ice saing and diving and very brief loks at a few others.  Of course gymnastics is still very popular, ever since Nadia Comaneche's Perfect Ten score back in nineteen seventy six, and it's my favorite too.  Today's heroine is Simone Biles and she's certainly impressive, extremely strong and does some awfully difficult moves, a lot more difficult than Comaneche did back wehn.  

She won a ton of medals, motly gold, and I tghought it was ver nice when she and a teammate took silver and bronze and decided to bow down to the Brazilian girl to got the gold.  I just thought it was a nice gesture, very sportsmanlike.  Of course Biles has so many medals such a gesture doesn't cost her anything, as it would if she were still strugglineg for her first or second, but still I thiought it was nice.  

Then Llast night I heard some of Matt Walsh's program on the radio and he has very diferent take on it.  I think he is wrong but I can't know for sure.  Because there is a controversy about the transgeneder stuff at the Olympics he sasw it in that same light, I'm referring to the incident where a biolgoically male transgender female hit a biolgoical woman and it was of course too threateneing because men are stronger than women but these days such simple realities are ignored.  I was watching the Olympics in spite of all that, figuring that most of the atheletes are innocent of what the powers that be are doing to destroy reality.Anway

Anyway, Walsh knew that Jordan Childs, the bronze medal winner on the US team was not originally in line for a medal, but then their coach put in a complaint with th judges because there was a question about how part of her performance had been scored and he thought it should be a higher score.  Everntually the judges agreed and moved Childs up into the thred place to get the bronze medal.  of course that was a great disappointment ot the Rumanian girl who had believed she had that medal up until tht point, a badly timed decision.  But I had no reason to think it was anything but a fair correction of an error they had made in scoring Jordan Childs' perofmrance.  I still have no treason to think otherwise.

Somehow Walsh got the idea that the upgrade in Childs' score was something like affirmative action, that she hadn't earned it.  I don't know how he got that idea.  She is black, as is Biles and so is the Brazilian girl who won the gold, and he thought there was some big deal being made about there being three black girls on the winers' podium.  I had heard it mentioned but I ddint' hear any big deal being wmade of it, and I can't imagine how on earth anyone could think a gynmnast's score would have been upgraded for anything but legitimate

 reasons, that she deserved the upgrade and her erlier scorre was the injustice.    

I can't see what I'm typing and this page soedoesn't look right now but I have to keep going because I have no idea what I would need to do to set it right if it is wrong somehow  Oh well.

Anywya Walsh just has to be wrong about why Jordan's score was changed.  To strange to think it was because ehshe's black.  

And then there was what I thought was a nice gesture as the two American medalists bowed down to the brazilian girl.  Biles said only that it was to recognize her achievement because "they work just as hard as we do."  And I have no reason to think anything other than that.  But Walsh seems to think the gesture had to do with the racial situation somehow.  I guess because the Brazialian girl is also black and if she had been white they wouldn't have made that gesture.  Well, I don't know but my guess is they might well have, I don't see why they wouldn't have if the whole point was just to demonstrate sportsmanship in a hard won battle for the gigols.  

Oh well.  there's weenough of this woke craziness going on without adding to it where it's not warranted.    

But maybe he's right.  I doubtg it, but if h e is I sup[ose I'll eventualy find out.

Dawkins blindness to godand Piers Morgan

 Richard Dawkins interviewed by Piers Morgan says nobody knows what existed at the very beginning but that it's rong to postulate a god to explain it.  But we don't postulate god, who says we postulate God?  Only Dawkins and other atheists I suppose.  The God of Christianity, and Judaism, reveals Himself in the Bible which is the history of His doings on this planet and in relation to His favorite creation, us.  Ham beings.  Nobody is merely postulateing God.  We are convinced of the reality of God as He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and it holds together very well so we keep[ confirming His reality the more we read it and understand it.  Dawkins has no clue to any of thta.  And even if you are talkinga bout the other gods known to humanity none of them was postulated, they were experienced.  Nobody merely postulates gods.  Or angels or demons.  There is alays some kind of evidence, some of it erhaps rather questionable bvut  nevertrheless it's evidence.  Novodsy merely poyustulates these things.  

So Dawkins claims we have no evidence.  Axctgually we have a lot of evidence, he just doesn't klike our evidence, it doesn't convince him.  Nevertheless there is a lot of it in tghe history of humanity as described int the Bible.  If you let your own unbelief reject it all as some kind of fiction then of course it becomes useless for evidence, but if you take it at its word, on its own terms, then there's a ton of evidenece in it.  

And as I keep saying here, Dawkins can't appreciate evidence of this sort.  He's like doubting Thomsas you hwas to see it to believe it.  Jesus chidend Thomsas for his rejectionjof what he'd been told by his ffriends about the reality of Christ's having bee raised from the dead, and so we can chide Dawkins but of course he will go on believing in his own unblibef because he needs a kind of evidencde tthat is simply tnot avilable for the kinds of things he wants eivdnece for.  You have to trust the testimony of others abut of course those others are just stupid in his eyeseveryone int eh Bible itself and all the millions of us who believe it, all stupid.  

I couldn't believe either, until I was in my mid forties.  Then I just believed what I was reading in books written by Christians.  They were convfincing.  But I was also having supernatural experiences \, of a demonic sort as I came to understand later, but supernatural for sure and that has its own compelling power.  

Now I think it wvery strange tht people don't recognize God in a million ways in nature and reality, but I myself didn't recognize Him so I know it doesn't happen even if it should.  I also think it's obvious that evolution can't possibly have happened, simply by contemplating the nature of living things, without even bothering with any of the arguments I spent so much time thinking out, but again apparently it's easy for all of us to ignore tall that too.

I don't like how Piers Morgan deals with the quetion either thought, or how he deals with Dawkins.  He's not the right person to bge interviewing him, he makes it all more confusing and actually rather unpleasant than it needs to be.  And he seems to be relying mostly on some sort of reasoning instead of on revelation.  Well hisr source is Catholicisim I gather and he really dones't know what he belives just that there is  God and there is an eternity we're all going to live in and it's all bliss or something like that.  Based on nothing.  In this case I'm with Dawkins, where's the evidence for any of that?    Piers isn't saved, judging by what he's saying, so if anyone is boing to be surprised upon death it's going to be Piers, and not happily surprised.  Now I have to pray for him too not just dawkins.  

More Peterson, Bible mangling, Evolution Noah, Flood etc.

 pETERSON IS GIVING A VERYNICE ADRESS TO THE GRADUATING CALSS AT hILLSDALE COLLEGE AND IT IS VERY GOOD i THINK, FOCUSING THE STUDENTS ON HOW TO THINK ABOUT WHERE THEY GO FROM HERE AND CRITERIA FOR DECIDING HOW THEY WANT TO CONDUCT THEIR LIVES AND SO ON.  aND IN THE PROCESS HE REFERS TO SOME OF HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE bIEL WHICH OF COURSE MAKE ME CRINGE ALOTHOUGH THE POINT HE'S MAKING IS NEVERTHLEELESSS A GOOD ONE S FAR AS MOTIVATING THE GRADUATES GOES.

tHE fLOOD CAN'T BE REAL TO HIM OF COURSE BUT HIS WAY OF PSYCHOLOGIZING IT KEEPS ESCAPING ME TO SUCH AN EXTENT i CAN'T EVEN KEEP IT IN MIND.  wHAT?  wHAT?   i CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER IT NOW BUT IF i COULD i WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANT.  i GUESS THAT'S BECAUSE THE fLOOD IS REAL TO ME, A REAL PHYSICAL CATACLYSM THAT HAPPENED TO THE WHOLE PLANET SOME FORTY FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO OR SO.  i JUST CAN'T PSYCHOLOGIZIE IT.  i LOOK AROUND AT THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND THINK i SEE THE PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF THAT fLOOD IN ITS TUMBLEDOWN WRECKED APPEARAND WHEREVER THE BARE GEOLOGIY OF IT IS APPARENT, WHERE THERE ISN'T A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL GREEN FOLIAGE TO CAMOUFLAGE IT.  aND OF COURSE THE STRATA, THE LAYERS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK CALLED THE gEOLOGICAL cOLUMN, THAT IS SO PATENTLY not WHAT SCIENCE CALLS IT, IF YOU GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT YOU'LL HAVE TO SEE THAT, REALLY GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT, AND SO MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLY THE RESULT OF A WORLDWIDE FLOOD  i CAN'T PULL IT DOWN TO THE CONEXT OF HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY.

tHEN, AND THIS IS KIND OF A SIDE NOTE HERE THAT'S NOT CENTRAL TO THE POINT, HE QUOTES THE PHRASE THAT SAYS nOAH WAS PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS AND GOES ON TO GIVE THAT A PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION ABOUT WHICH HE SOUNDS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.  i CAN'T IMAGINE WHERE THAT CERTAINTY COMES FROM.  pERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS ISN'T EXACTLY A COMMON WAY OF DESCRIBING ANYTHING THAT i KNOW OF.  i PUZZLED OVER IT FOR A LONG TIME, AND i DON'T KNOW HOW pETERSON THINKS HE KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS AND RATTLES IT OFF IN SUCH A GLIB WAY.  i FINALLY DECIDED ITHAT IT MUST REFER TO THE EVENT EARLIER IN cHAPTER sIX WHEN THE "sONS OF gOD WHO ARE THE FALLEN ANGLES, TAKE THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN TO BE WIVES AND EGET GIANTS WHICH WE KNOW S KNOW AS THE nEPHILIM.  tHOSE WERE LITERAL GENERATIONS THAT WERE DANGEROUS BECAUSE ANGELS CAN'T BE REDEEMED SO THE HYBRID OFFSPLRING CAN'T BE REDEEMED AND IF THE MIXING OF THE TWO CONTINUED EVENTUALLY THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE WOULD BE CONTAMINATED AND COULDN'T BE REDEEMED.  sO ALTHOUGH THIS could BE WRONG i THINK IT'S PROBABLY RIGHT, THAT nOAH'S BEING PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS MEANS THAT HIS GENETIC LINE WAS NOT CONTAMINATED BY THE GENETIC INHERITANCE FROM THE FALLEN ANGELS AND REMAINED HUMAN AND THEREFORE REDEEMABLE.  sINCE THE GIANTS SHOW UP AFTER THE fLOOD SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ONE OF THE WIVES OF ONE OF nOAH'S SONS DID CARRY THAT CONTAMINATED SEED, WHICH MAY BE TRUTH.. TRUE.  bUT nOAH'S BEING PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS PROBABLY MEANS THAT HE HIMSEOLF AND HIS OTHER FAMILY  WERE NOT CONTAMINATED AND COULD BECOME THE PROGENITORS OF A TRUE HUMAN RACE. THAT COULD BE SAVED BY THE mESSIAH WHO WAS EVEN WAY BACK THEN BELIEVED TO BE COMING.

iT'S HARD FOR A HUMAN BEING BORN INTO THIS FALLEN WORLD TO BELIEVE IN gOD.   aS SCRIPTURE SAYS THE FLESH IS ENMITY WITH gOD, THAT'S WHY WE MUST BE BORN AGAIN SO GIVE US THE PSIRT THAT CAN KNOW AND LOVE gOD.  THE FLESH MUST HATE IM AND REJECT hIM BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY FOR FLESH TO APPREHEND hIM AND THE FLESH IS ATTRACTED TO SIN WHICH IS AT ODDS WITH gOD TO BEGIN WITH.  sO ALTHOUGH pETERSON IS ATTRACTED TO THE BIBLE HE'S ATTRACTED TO ITS MORAL IMPLICATIONS OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS TO HUMANITY AS HE'S ABLE TO MANAGE TO MISINTERPRET IT TO BE SAYING, BECAUSE HE CAN'T DETECT gOD SO gOD CAN'T EXIST AN THAT IS THAT.  aND CERTAINLY THE fLOOD Can't have happened in reality, nor the miracles and so on and so forth.  They must all be reinterpreted and psychologized.  And it says something that the world word pscyhne means or is translated soul in the Bible, not spirit, although there are some teachers who try to make the spirit the funciton of the soul and they are able to make some sense using that idea although I think it's wrong so I'd just say I think that thoelogy best comes from the recognizition that we are tripartitgite, body sould and spirit in three separate components.  

I do think there are plenty of clues that the Bible is referring to a real God and real Flood and real miracles and all that but it is nevertheless true in the end that you can't reallyget it unless you are born again.  I also think all it should take even if you are merely a fallen creature to realize that the science of the fossil record is laubhable is just actually think about what it's based on.  Just look tat the layers of rock stacked unup in the Grand Canoy where you can see them to quite a depth and think about the claim that each represents millionso f years of time and pursue the physical properties of those tstrata until you graps that it's simply imposisble and then you'd have to see that a wrold wide Flood is really a reasonable way to explain them and time period s are NOT a reasonanlr way to explain them.

I do like Peterson's message, and I think in my own way I'm trying to live something like what he is recomiending out in the way I write my posts.  I 'd like my posts to help him recognize the truth and give up his certainty that there is no God in the sense that the bibvle says there is.  That god must be some kind of psychological construct.  Give it up.  It's false.

aND nOW A mUSING aBOUT bEN sHAPIRO

 aND NOW i HAVE A COMPLAINT TO MAKE ABOUT bEN sHAPIRO.  aLL THESE PEOPLE i'M WRITING ABOUT RECENTLY ARE PEOPLE i LIKE, THAT i AGREE WITH ON MANY THINGS AND LIKE TO LISTEN TO, AND THAT INCLUDES bEN cHAPRIRO.  bUT HE REALLY PUSHED MY BUTTONS WITH SOMETHING HE SAID ABOUT cHRISTIANITY.

hE'S HAD A COUPLE OF INTERVIEWS WITH jOHN mACaRTHUR AND IF HE COULDN'T PERSUADE HIM TO cHRIST i CERTAIN LY DON'T EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT HE ISN'T JUST A NONBELIEVER IN cHRIST HE'S GOT A PRETTY OFFENSIVE IDEA ABOUT hIMJ THAT i DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD.  hE MENTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME THAT HE'S READ THE nEW tESTAMETN SO HE KNOWS THE GOSPELS AND THE BASICS OF cHRISTIANITY, AND IT WOULDN'T BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND IF HE NEVERTHELESS DOESN'T BELIEVE IT ALL BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY PEOP[LE WHO KNOW OF IT AND DON'T BELIEVE IT.  bUT WHEN ASKED WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT IT HE SAID HE BELIEVES WHAT MANY jEWS BELIEVE, WHICH IS THAT jESUS WAS A jEW WHO LED A REVOLT AGAINST THE rOMAN EMPIRE AND GOT CRUCIFIED FOR hIS TROUBLE.  

nOW that IS OFFENSIVE.  fIRST BECAUSE IT IS THE COMPLETE CONTRADICTION OF THWHAT THE nEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY PRESENTS ABOUT cHRIST, IT TURNS IT ALL UPSIDE DOWN AND BACKWARDS.  jESUS SAID hIS KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD AND hE WAS ALWAYS DEFLECTING THE DISCIPLE'S EXPECTATIONS OF hIS BEING THE mESSIAH THEY EXPECTED TO RESTORE iSRAEL OUT FROM UNDER THE DOMINATION OF rOME.  yOU HAVE TO DENY EVERYTHING YOU KNOW cHRISTIANS BELIEVE TO HAVE SUCH AN IDEA ABOUT JESUS AS sHAPIRO HAS.  i DON'T KNOW HOW HE ALLOWS HIMSELF TO THINK SUCH A THING.  hOW COULD HE MAKE SENSE OF WHAT THE nEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY SAYS.  dOES HE THINK A FEW FISHERMEN AND AN EXpHARISEE COULD HAVE MADE IT ALL UP?  REALLY?  really?

hE SAYS THE jESWS WERE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT mESSIAH THAN THE ONE jESUS PRESENT HIMSEDLF TO BE, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE.  tHE DISCIPLES OF cHRIST THEMSELVE ES HAS D A DIFFERENT mESSIAH IN MIND.   THOUGH IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR WHY SINCE THE oLD tESTAMENT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE mESSIAH WAS TO BE gOD hiMSELF, "gOD WITH US" gOD TABERNACLING AMONG US.  hE WAS TO BE CALLED "wONDERFUL, cOUNCILLOR, aLMOIGHTY gOD, eVERLASTING fATHER, pRINCE OF pEOACE.    HAT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE oLD tESTEMTNA.  sOMETHER IN iSAIAH i THINK.  naND WHEN i SAY IT i HEAR IT SUNG TO THE MUSIC hANDEL WROTE FOR IT.  "sAY UNTO THE CITIES OF jUDA bEHOLD YOUR gOD"    hE CLAIMED TO BE goD.  THAT'S WHAT THE mESSIAH WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.  HE WAS TO BE gOD.  wHY DIDN'T THEY KNOW THAT?  wHY DOESN'T sHAPIRO KNOW THAT?

aNYWAYU.

mORE mUSINGS ON jORDAN pETERSON

 lISTENING TO jORDAN pETERSON'S LECTURE ON THE BIBLE, i TGHINK IT'S THE FIRST ONE.  i'D HEARD PART OF IT BEFORE BUT A LONG TIME AGO SO i'M LISTENING AGAIN FROM THE BEGINNING.  pROBABY WON'T GET THROUGH MUCH OF IT.  wHAT'S INTERESTING IN PARTICULAR AGBOUT IT IS THTA HE'DS OING THE KIND OF THINKING UNBELIEVERS DO IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BIG QUESTIONS.  fREOM THAT POINT OF VIEW YOU CAN ONLY START FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE, OF COURSE FAMILIARIZING YOURSELF WITH THE SAME SORT OF THINKING DONE BY OTHERS AS EWELL, BUT THE POINT IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY START FROM ERSONA EXPERIENCE BECAUSE NOBODY HAS GIVEN YOU A MANUAL OF INTRUXTTIONS SUCH AS YOU WOULD GET WITH SAY A NEW MACHINE YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO OPERTAE.  yOU HAVE ONLY YOUR OWN VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCES IN THIS WORLD, YOUR OWN MIND AND FEELINGS, AND THOSE OF OTHERS ALONG THE SAME LINES.

yOU CAN'T THINK ANY OTHER WAY IF YOU AREN'T A BELIEVER.  THAT'S WHAT ALL PHNILOSOPHY IS ABOUT THAT ISN'T BEUILT ON BIBLICAL REVELATION, OR ACTIVELY REJECTS IT.  bECAUSE THAT REVELATION does GIVEYOU A MANUAL OF INTSTRUCTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS IFYOU ACCEPT IT ON ITS OWN TERMS.  i WAS IN MY FORTIES WHEN i FINALLY CAME TO BELIEVE IN gOD AND RECOGNIZED THE VBIBLE AS hIS WORD TO BE WHOLLY TRUSTED.  bUT BEFORE THAT i COULD ONLY THINK AS pETSON THINKS.   hE PARTCULARLY LIKES nIETZSCHE AND jUNG AND TAKES THEM AS FOUNDATIONS FOR HIS THINKING.  hE APPRECIATES THE bIBLE VERY MUCH BUT IN A WAY THAT IS COMPLETELY ALIEN TO THE APPRECIATION OF A BLIEVER WHO OF COURSE TAKES IT ON ITS OWN TERMS AND AVOIDS IMPOSING ANYTHING ALIEN TO IT ON ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND IT.   bUT ALL pETERSON CAN DO IS IMPOSE HIS ALIEN THOUGHTS ON IT IN HIS ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND IT.  

hE CALLS IT A STRANGE OLD BOOK.  hE CALLS IT CONTREADICTORY.  hE CLAIMS WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT, HOW IT CAME ABOUT, WHO IT BGOT PUT TOGETHER, WHY IT HAS EXERTED SUCH INFLUENCE ON WESTERN CULTURE AND SO ON.  fUNNY HOW HE TALKS ABOUT "WE" HAVING USCH AN ATTITUDE TOWARD IT, AS IF THE COUPLE BILLION OF US WHO TAKE IT ON ITS OWN TERMS DON'T EXIST.  wE AREN'T HIS "WE" FOR SOME REASON.  hIS "WE" IS THE SECULAR WORLD, THE WORLD THAT PUTS SCIENCE ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE.    hE WANTS TO TREAT THE bIBLE WITH RESPECT AS AN IMPORTANT FOUNDATION OF OUR CULTURE BUT HE CAN'T UNDERSTAND  IT THE WAY BELIEVERS DO SO IT HAS TO PUZZLE HIM THAT IT WAS EVER TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR BELIEVED, HE JUST KNOWS THAT IT EXERTED A GREAT INFLUENCE AND THAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT AND WORTHY OF RESPECT.  wELL, THAT'S SOMETHING i GUESS.

i MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT COUPLE BILLION SINCE MOST OF THOSE ARE cATHOLICS AND i'M NOT SURE HOW MANYU OF THEM REGARD THE bIBLE AS gOD'S WORD OR READ IT AT ALL FOR THAT MATTER SINCE THEY GET THEIR cHRISTIANITY MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF THE LITETURGY IN THEIR CHURCHES.  i THINK THAT'S HOW, THOUGHJ MAYBE THERE'S MORE TO IT.  iN maMERICA CATHOLICS READ THE BIBLE AND IN MANY WAYS ACT MORE LIKE pROTESTANTS, I GUESS BECAUSE WE ARE A pROTESTANT COUNTRY.  sTILL THEY WANT TO HOLD ONTO THE PAGAN PARTS OF THEIR RELIGION, LIKE THE ROSARY, PRAYERS THEY LEARNED ASC CHILDREN AND SO ON.  wELL, OF COURSE, IF YOUR PARTENTS TAUGHT YOU THE PRAYERS OF THE ROSARY IT'S HARD TO FIND FAULT WITH THEM.  yOU REMEMBER THEM FONDLY FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD AND ALL THAT.  aND PRAYERS TO MARY, AND LIGHTING CANDLES AND MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS AND DIPPING YOUR FINGERS IN THE HOLY ATER WHEN YOU IENTER THE CHURCH, AND BACK A FEW DECADES NOT EATING MEAT ON fRIDAYS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.   tHE SCRIPTURE SAYS THAT FORBIDDING TO EAT MEAT AND FORBIDDING TO MARRY ARE DOCTRINES OF DEMONS AND THAT'S PRETTY CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE CATHOLIC cHURCH SO iDON'T KNOW WHAT THEYDO WITH THAT ONE.

aNYWAY, pETERSON ADMIRES THE BIBLE IN MANY WAYS ALTHOUGH HE REJECTS IT AS THE REVELATION OF TRUTH AND THE REALITY OF GOD BELIEVRES KNOW IT TO BE.  hE'S WRONG ABOUG MANY OF THOSE THINGS HE SAYS AT THE BEGINNING.  wE ACTUALLY DO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM, WHPO PRESERVED IT AND HOW AND WHY AND HOW IT BECAME A COLLECTION THAT BECAME A BOOK AND WHY IT HAD SUCH A POWERFUL INFLUENCE ON WESTERN CIVILICATION, ALL OF WHICH HE THINKS WE DON'T KNOW.  i GUESS HIS "WE" DOESN'T KOW IT, BUT MY "WE" DOES KNOW IT.

hIS SERIES ON THE bIBLE IS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND IT FROM A PSCYHOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AS HE PUTS IT.  THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT ITS SPYCHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AS HE PUTS IT TOGETHER IS GOING TO UNDERMINE ITS TRUE SIGNIFICANCE, WHICH IS AS A REELATION OF THE SUPERNATURAL gOD AND hIS PLAN FOR THIS WORLD AND HUMAN BEINGS.  SO FOR INSTANCE HE INTERPRETS THE RAISING OF THE IMAGE OF THE SERPENT FOR THE PEOPLE TO LOOK ON IT WHEN THEY HAD BEEN BITTEN BY SERPENTS BEAUSE OF THEIR SIN AGAINST gOD, HE INTERPRETS THAT AS THE IMPORTANCE OF LOOKING ON OUR FAULTS AND PROBLEMS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS A WAY TO COPE WITH THEM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.  I FOGET WSHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID.  bUT IN FACT IT IS A SUPERNATURAL EVENT.  lOOKING ON THE SERPENT ACTUALLY CURSES THE PEOPLE OF THE SERPENT BITES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE KILL THEM.  HE APPRECIATES THAT JESUS REFERS TO THAT INCIDENT WHEN HE SAYS THE sON FO mAN MUST BE LIFTED UP AS THE SERPENT WAS IN THE WILDERNESS, THAT'S A PEICTURE OF OUR SALVATION, AND IT TOOK IS SUPERNATURAL, BUT pETERSON CAN ONLY UNDERSTND IT AS A SORT OF METAPHOR FOR LOOKING INTO OUR OWN SINS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS A KEY TO LIVING RIGHTLY IN THIS WORLD.  

THAT DISCUSSION WAS IN AOTHER VIDEO, NOT THE bIBLE LECTURE.  aND ALSO IN ANOTHER VIDEO HE INTERPRETS jESUS SAYING WE MUST BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN IN TERMS OF BECOMEING PLAYFUL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS CHIDLREN ARE.  uH, NO.  i BELIEVE THE MAIN POINT IS THAT CHILDREN ARE HELPLESS AND ULTTERLY DEPENDENT ON OTHERS TO TAKE CARE OF THEM IN EVERY DAWAY AND THAT'S HOW WE ARE TO READ THE bIBLE AND BE BELIEVERS IN hIS SACRIFICE FOR US AND ALL OF IT, AS UTTERLY TDEPENDENT ON gOD AND WITHOUT ANY MEANS OF OUR OWN TO SAVE ORUSELVES.  wHEN WE READ THE bIBLE FOR INSTANCE WE MUST SIMPLY TAKE IT AT ITS WORD, WE ARE NOT TO DOUBETHINK IT AS pETERSON DOES AND IMPOSE OUR OWN WORLDLY THOUGHTS ON IT, WE ARE SIMPLY TO TAKE IT AS GIVEN.  tHERE ARE PLETNY OF THINGS WE'LL HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTNDING BUT THOSE WE HAVE TO EXPECT WILL BE MADE CLEAR IN TIME IF WE REMAIN FAITHFUL AND JUST TAKE IT AT ITS WORD.  tgHE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF HOW pETERSONIS APPROACHING THE BIBLE.  

iNNOCENT TRUST, THAT'S THE KEY.  nOT COMPLEX REASONING AND DEEP THINKING ABOUT OUR PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION.  pLENTY OF SOPHISTICATION, OR DEEP KNOWLEDGE GROWS OUT OF THAT INNOCENT TRUST BUT THAT'S THE PLACE IT MUST BEGIN, WE ARE NOT TO IMPOSE OUR OWN THINKIING ON IT.  

tHIS IS A FALLEN WORLD. pETERSON CAN ONLY THINK AS A FALLEN MAN, HE IS LIMITED BY THAT MIND AND BY HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE FALLEN WORLD, WHICH HE ALONG WITH MOST OF FALLEN HUMANITY TAKE AS ALL THERE IS.  tHIS IS IT, THIS IS tHE wORLD, THERE ISNO OTHER, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OTU WHERE WE CAME FROM ON OUR OWN ETC.  sO WE CAME UP WITH EVOLUTION.    jESUS BROUGHT THE REMEDY FOR FALLENNESS, hIS OWN SINLESS LIFE AND hIS DEATH ON TH CROSS ON OUR PLACE.  bELIEVING THAT IS THE CONCEPTION OF THE NEW NBORTH WHICDH QUICKENS, BRINGS TO LIFE, RESTROES, THE SPIRITUAL FACULTY TO US THAT WE LOST AT THE fALL WHEN OUR FIRST PARENTS DISOBEYED gOD.  bELIEVE AND ETERNAL LIFE WILL BE YOURS.  iN REALITY.  aND YOU WILL BEGIN TO KNOW THINGS YOU NEVER BEFORE BDREAMED OF FOR HALF A SECOND.

pETERSON HS SOME INTERESTING THINGS TO SAY ABOUT HOW THE MIND WORKS AND HOW WE CONSTRUCT REALITY FROM WITHIN THIS FALLEN FRAME OF REFERNECE, ALTHOUGH OF COURSE HE DOEN'ST THINK OF IT AS ANYTHING BUT THE REAL WORLD AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.  bUT ANYWAY HE IS AN INTERESTING THINKER WITHINT THAT FRAME OF REFERENCE BUT ONLY A BORN AGAIN cHRISTIAN CAN KNOW WHAT IT'S REALL ALL ABOUT.  nOT THAT WE NECESSARIY DO BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE EXERCISED TIN THAT SORT OF THINKING TO UDNERSTND ANYTHING TOO, BUT THE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE THE NECESSARY FOUNDATION FOR IT, THE REVIVED SPIRITUAL FACULTY WHICH FALLEN MAN LACKS.   jESUS SAYS IN jOHN tHREE THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF gOD UNLESS YOU ARE BORN AGAIN, UNLESS YOU HAVE THE sPIRITU OF gOD WHICH IS OUR LEGACY AS BELIEVERS.  yOU MUST BELIEVE THE BASICS ABOUT SALVATION TO RECWIVE hIM.  i EMEMBER THINKING THIS IS ALL THERE IS AND i'M NOW SO HAPPY TOtO BE BORN  KNOW IT ISN'T, WASN'T.  wE AREN'T IN THE DARK, OR NOT AS MUCH IN THE DARK ANYWAY, AS WE WERE AS MERELY ONCE BORN FALLEN HUMAN BEINGS.  

tO B BRN INTO THE FALLEN WORLD IS TO BE BORTN WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE GOD.. aND THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS AS MOST PEOPLE DON'T.  wE LEARN ABOUT gOD BY BEING GOLD ABOUT gOD AND THEN WE BELEIVE WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF hIS REALITY.  uNTIL WE ARE BORN AGAIN AND THEN THE FACULTY OF KOWING GOD IS RESTORED TO US, tHORUGH THE DEATH OF djESUS FOR US ON THE CROSS.    dAWKINS WANTS EVIDENCE OF gOD AND THINGS WE CLAIMA ABOUT gOD. tHERE ISN'T ANY FOR A FALLEN MAN EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS AND IF YOU REJECT THAT OUT OF HAND YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE WHATEVER ABOUT gOD.

aNYWAY.  tHOSE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS WEREN'T WHAT i REEWANTSED TO WRITE BUT i DON'T REMEMBER WHAT i WANTED TO WRITE ANYWAY SO i'M GOING TO LEAVE THEM THERE.

correction:  sOMEWHERE IN THE ABOVE POST i USE THE WORD "LEGACY" WHERE i SHOULD HAVE USED THE WORD "INHERITANCE."  tHAT IS, THE hOLY sPIRIT IS OUR INHERITANCE, NOT OUR LEGACY.  i CAN'T SEE WELLE NOUGH TO BGO BACK AND CORRECT IT SO i'M ADDING THIS NOTE INSTEAD.

sATURDAY:  lISTENING TO MORE OF pETERSON AND JUST HAVE TO GIVE UP.  tHERE'S ONLY SO MUCH i CAN TAKE OF A MAN DEFINING GOD AND CLAIMING THT'S WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE, SINCE HE CAN'T ACCEPT THAT THE bIBLE IS SIMPLE TRUTH TO BE BELIEVED RATHER THAN A COMPLICATED TESTIMONY TO THE MENTAL MACHINATIONS OF HUMANITY.  iT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE ENDS OUP THINKING BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY WRONG.  hE'S INTERESTING WHEN HE SPECULATES ABOUT THINGS LIKE DREAMS, WHAT THEY ARE AND WHERE THEY COME FROM BECAUSE THAT DOES'T CONTRADICT ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT i KNOWORF, BUT HIS CONVICTION THAT ALL THE STUFF ABOUT gOD IS JUST A REIFICATION OF THE THOUGHTS OF HUANITY ...  wELL THERE'S NO POINT IN LISTENING TO ANY MORE OF IT.

aS i POINT OUT ABOVE HE DOES SEEM TO THIK THAT "WE" HAVE ALL GIVEN UP ON THE bIBLE AS SOMETHING TO BE BELIEVED.  THAT'S HOW HE TALKS ABOUT IT, WHICH IS RATHER ODD.  yOU'D THINK HE WOULD KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF US WHO DO TAKE IT JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN AND THINK OF IT AS A REVELATION OF gOD hIMSELF TO hIS MISERABLY CONFUSED HUMAN RACE.  lIKE LITTLE CHILDREN WE ARE TO LEARN FROM IT THE NATURE OF gOD AND hIS WORK IN THE WORLD AND hIS PLANS FOR US AND WHAT REDEMPTION IS AND HOW WE GOT HERE AND ALL THAT.  THE bOOK TAELLS US ALL THAT.  hOW DO PEOPLE WHO LET THEMSELVES FOOL AROUND WITH THE BIBLE LIKE THIS LET THEMSELVES GET AWAY WITH IT?  aRE THEY REALLY NOT AWARE THAT THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF MILLIONS OF TRUE BELIEVERS IN IT AND MANY HIGHLY EDUCATED MEN WHO HAVE WRITTEN TOMES EXPLAINING ITS THEOLOGICAL MEANINGS?  iS HE NOT AWARE OF THAT?  iT'S MORE O LESS THE SAME QUETION i ASK ABOUT bEN sHAPIRO WITH HIS SUPEFIYINGLY WRONGHEADED NOTION ABOUT jESUS AS A jEWISH LEADER OF A REVOLT AGAINST rOME.  sTUPEFYINGLY DULLWITTED.  tHESE MEN HAVE READ THE BIBLE, THE NEW tESTAMENT, AND YET THEY LET THESMSELVE STHINK SUCH REDUCTIONISTIC DISTORTED THOUGHTS ABOUT IT?  wELL, YEAH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FALLEN MEN, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF FALLEN MEN WHO WOULD HAVE HESITATED TO MAKE SUCH DECLARATIONS IN THE FACE OF THWO OR FOUR THOUSDAND YEARS OF DEEP THOUGHT ABOUT IT BY BELIEVERS.

a mESSAGE FOR jORDAN pETERSON ABOUT hIS vERSION OF rELIGION

 sURE IT'S SILLY i SUPPO0SE TO TALK TO SOMEONE FROM MY BLOG WHO IS NOT LIKELY EVER TO SEE MY BLOG BUT SICE i CAN'T SEE WELL ENOUGH TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY i DO IT ANYWAY AND WHO KNOWS, MAYBE HE'LL COME BY AND SEE IT.  wHAT IF HE SNASWERED ME?  i COLDN'T SEE HIS ANSWER.  i DON'T EVEN TRY TO FIND THE cOMMENTS SECTION ANYW MORE, IT'S BEYOND Y ABILITY TO FIND IT.  i CAN'T READ MY EMAILS.   BUT i CAN STILL SEND A MESSAGE OUT INTO THE ETHER AS IT WERE AND MAYBE IT WILL REACH HIS EAR WHO KNOWS.

i'M THINKING HERE OF jORDAN pETERSON.  i JUST HEARD pIERS mORGAN'S INTERVIEW OF HIM AND HIS DAUGHTER, DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS BU THEY'RE INTERESTING PEOPLE.  lATE IN THE PROGRAM RELIGION CAME UP AND pETERSON REVEALED THAT HE BELIEVES IN GOD AND TRYIES TO ACT AS IF THERE IS A gOD AND THAT'S BECAUSE HE WANTS TO AVOID hELL, WHICH HE BELIEVES IS REAL AND CAN BE AVIDED IN THIS WAY.  bY RECOGNIZING gOD AND BEING GOOD i GUESS.  

sO OF COURSE I CWANT TO TELL HIM, WARN HIM, UH OH jORDAN, THAT ISN'T GOING TO WORK.  iF YOU REALLY WANT TO AVOID hELL, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO DO THAT.  yES ONLY ONE.  YES cHRISTIANITY IS AN EXCLUSIVE RELIGION.  YES, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE TRUTH AND AOOTH HTE OTHERS ARE JUST HUMAN INVENTIONS OR SATANIC INVENTIONS AND WHILE THEY MAY OFFER SOME INTERETING AND USEFUL PHILOSOPHIES TO LIVE BY THEY WILL NOT SAVE YOU FROM hELL.  oNLY cHRIST CAN SVAE YOU FROM hELL.   

sCRITURE ITSELF SAYS THAT BELIEVING IN GOD WO'T GET YOU ANYWAHWERE, THAT EVEN THE DEMONS OR EDEVILS BELIEVE IN gOD AND THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE SAVED.  BEING GOOD WON'T SAVE IYOU.  iTG MIGHT KEEP YOUFROM THE LOWER REGIOS OF hEL BUT IT WON'T KEEP YOU OUT OF hELL.  jUST ONE SIN IS ALL IT TAKES TO GET US INTO hELL.  wE'RE ALL BORN hhELL-BOUND BECAUSE WE INHERIT THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS, WE ARE BORN IN THE SIN NATURE OR FLSHLY NATURE, UNABLE TO KNOW gOD PERSONALLY AS THEY DID BEFORE THEY DISOBEYED.  bUT IT WAS BECAUSE WE CAN'T SAVE OURSELVES AND ARE DOOMED TO hELL THAT gOD PROMISED FROM ALL THE WAY BACK IN eDEN AND ALL THROUGH THE oLD tESTAMENT TO SEND US A sAVIOR WHO WOULD SAVE US FROM THE SINS THAT CONDEMN US TO hELL.  

fINALLTHE mESSIAH CAME, FULFILLING ALL THE PROPHECIES OF hIS ARRIVAL, THE PROPHECY OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH, OF THE BIRTH IN bETHLEHEM, OF hIS SUFFERING FOR US AND A LOT OF OTHERS, AND THAT IS jESUS cHRIST.  wHEN hE DIED ON THE CROSS hE TOOK THE SINS OF ALL THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE IN hIM UPON HhIMSELF AND hIS DEATH PAID FOR ALL THOSE SINS AND CLEANSED ALL WHO BELIEVE OF THOSE SINS COMPLETELY SO THAT WE CAN ALL START WITH A NEW SLATE, SINLESS JUST AS hE WAS SINLESS.  iF WE BELIEVE THAT, KNOW THAT hE DIDED FOR US AND THAT WE ARE FORGIVEN ALL OUR SINS BECAUSE hE PAID FOR THEM, THEN WE ARE SAVED.  aND THAT MEANS SAVED FROM hELL.  sAVED TO ETERNAL LIFE.  wE ARE BORN AGAIN WHEN WE EMBRACE THAT TREUTH, WE RECEIVE THE hOLY sPIRIT WHICH IS THE LIFE OF gOD WITHIN US WHICH BEGINS THE PORCESS OF FITTING US FOR LIFE IN hEAVEN.  nO YOU DON'T HAVE THE lOGOS WITHIN YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN gOD, WHATEVER THAT WOULD MEAN ANYWAY, IT'S JUST SOME KIND OF jUNGIAN HOOHA.  bUT IF YOU BELIEVE THE TRUTH, THAT jESUS PAID FOR YOUR SINS WHEN hE DIED ON THE cROSS AND SHED hIS BLOOD FOR US, THEN YOUARE SAVED FROM hELL AND THAT'S THE obnly WAY ANYONE IS SAVED FROM hELL.

si GIEUESS IF i COULD SEE WELL EHNOUGH i'D FIND pETERSON'S WEBSITE AND SEND IT DIFRECTLY BUT UNFORTUNATELY HE'LL HAVE TO DISCOVER IT SOME ONEHTER WAY.  iF HE CARES AT ALL, WHICH HE MAY NOT.  pEOPLE LIKE THEIR OWN VERSIONS OF gOD SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE TRUTH TRUE ONE , SOME DO ANYWAY.  fORTUNATELY OTHERS HAVE THE HUMILITY TO ACCEPT WHAT GOD DID THE WAY gOD DID IT INSTEAD.  

 i i CAN ALWAYS PRAY OF COURSE.    i MAY PRAY FOR LOTS OF PEOPLE BUT WHEN SOMEONE REALLY BELIEVES HE'S DOING SOMETHING TO AVOID hELL AND i KNOW HE'S DECEIVED ABOUT THAT IT GIVES ME MORE MOTIVATION THAN USUAL TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND TRY TO STEER HIM RIGHT.  

ooH AND BY THE WAY, cATHOLICISM WON'T SAVE OU.  pERHAPS THERE ARE A FEW WHO GET SAVED IN THAT INSTITUTION BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT NOBODY EVER DOES, BECAUSE THEY DON'T TEACH THE RIGHT WAY TO GET SAVED AND THEY MAKE IT SOUND LIKE YOU CAN NEVER KNOW IF YOU'RE SAVED.  tHEY TEACH SOMNE TRUE chRISTIANITY BUT NOT THE PART THAT SAVES YOU.  bELONGING TO THAT cHURCH CERTAINLY WON'T SAVE YOU AND SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT.  aND PRAY8ING TO mARY IS ALWAYSMOST A RECIPE FOR BEING SURE YOU NEVER GET SAVED SO i KNOPE THOSE WHO HAVE MISTAKENLY CHOSEN THE cATHOLID cHURCH THINKYIN G THEY ARE CHOOSING cHRISTIANITY GET THE MESSAGE SOONER RATHER THAN TOO LATE.   

yEAH, i KNOW i'M NUTS.  i SIT OUT HERE HAVING CONVIERSATIONS IN MY HEAD WITH ALL SORT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW i EXIST AND WOULDN'T CARE ANYWAY.  THAT'S TOTALLY NUTS.  oH WELL.  sOME PEOPLE HAVE COE BY AND CHATED A BIT WHEN i WROTE ABOUT THEM.  yOU NEVER KNOW.