Conference hydra::dejavu

    Depending on your preferred source of information, either A&E or
    prehistoric mankind.
    
    Per biblical references, Adam and Eve were here first.  Per "The Urantia
    Book", Adam and Eve made their appearance some time later.
    
    Come to think of it, 'prehistoric' strains of humankind haven't figured
    much in the bible, as I understand it.  And, as I've always considered
    Adam and Eve as the direct progenitors of modern humankind, this tends
    to put the concepts of prehistoric human developing into modern human a
    bit at odds with the Adam and Eve story (in my mind).
    
    Dave
    
    
    
    Dave

Re .0 (Ariel):

>Adam and Eve or the prehistoric man?

Umm.  This subject probably belongs in RELIGION or some-such.  However, it's
probably worth pointing out that the two "possibilities" aren't mutually
exclusive.

In order to reach His listeners, Jesus spoke in parables.  Likewise, in order
for a story to be understandable, it may have to be presented in a poetic way
rather than an academic one.

Using Biblical; writings (how better to treat the Adam and Eve narrative?),
Gen 1:24-27: "And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after
his kind: and it was so.  And God made the beast of the earth after
his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the
earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  And God said, Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all mthe earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image ofd god created he him; male
and female created he them."

Now unless we assume a very strange "image" of God, it's clear that this isn't
referring to asnatomical features.

This is clarified by Gen 2:7 -- "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of 
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul."

Both of these accounts hint vat what God was doing: the "image" in question
was that of "a living soul"; that is, a soul with the potential for ... well,
the spark of the divine.  Now "out of the dust" is another way of saying
"from the humblest beginnings"; thus, evolving from the stuff of the planet
is in consonance with the above.  From that, we can say that life evolved to
"prehistoric man," and that when onew of them ("Adam") was given a "living soul,"
he became "human."

That's one hypothesis, anyway.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .4 (Marcos):
    
>> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: 
>                    ^^             ^^^              ^^^
>
>How many gods are there?
    
    There are several answers to that.
    
    The simplest:  The KJV was written at a time where kings usede the
    "royal we" to refer to themselves in first person.  This has carried
    down to modern times.  When Queen Victoria was less than ticklewd with
    something, she said, "We are not amused" rather than "I am not
    amused."  Under that umbrella, it would be assumed that God also used
    the "royal we," seeing as who He is.
    

>> From that, we can say that life evolved to "prehistoric man," and that when 
>> one of them ("Adam") was given a "living soul,"he became "human."
>
>Thus the "prehistoric man" who was clever enough to make tools and drawings on 
>caves didn't have a "living soul"?
 
    Well, that's a theological question (sea otters use tools to break
    open clams, for example); not so much for a soul, but a "living" one
    (i.e., one with a divine spark, which would be the "image" of the
    Creator).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .5 (Steve)
     
         The "royal 'we'," as you put it, would seem to me to have more
    to do with the plurality of the individual's beingness, i.e., that
    the individual in question is ALSO "God" and is therefore more than
    one.  Just a little ego-centric, especially in view of the fact that
    no one else would also be "we."  
         That "God" would use the term "we" is more acceptable, mainly
    because if we are all "God," and "God" knows it, then he can speak of
    the totality of all of us as "we."  So why can't we, then
    (legitimately, that is?)  Because while "God" may know us and who
    we all are, there are very, very few humans who can take ownership
    of the converse.
    
        As for the soul, are you implying that there are different 
    "levels" of soul?  That is, that some souls are more evolved than
    others?  All souls aren't created equal, in other words?
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .6 (Fredrick):
    
    >     The "royal 'we'," as you put it, would seem to me to have more
    >to do with the plurality of the individual's beingness, i.e., that
    >the individual in question is ALSO "God" and is therefore more than
    >one.  Just a little ego-centric, especially in view of the fact that
    >no one else would also be "we."  
    
    Perhaps; however, recall the translation was in the days of royalty,
    when "we" was the accepted mode of first person address by a ruler.
    Alternatively, the Trinitarian aspect of Christianity also suggests
    that "we" can refer to God in the various aspects (Father/Son/Holy_
    Spirit).
    
    >    As for the soul, are you implying that there are different 
    >"levels" of soul?  That is, that some souls are more evolved than
    >others?  All souls aren't created equal, in other words?
    
    Many religions differentiate between animals, who are either supposed
    to have no souls or to have "mortal" souls (i.e., that extinguish at
    the time of death), and humans, whose souls are supposed to be
    immortal.  One could also say that the difference between animal souls
    and human souls might be that humans are capable of conscious sinning,
    whereas animals aren't (i.e., are inherently innocent); which would
    mean that the "divine spark" would include the capability of doing good
    and/or evil, which would  set it apart from "animal" souls.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .7 (Stve)
    
         Whoosh!
    
         As a "personal aside," am I ever glad I left religions and
    their wonderful interpretations behind!  What if I ended this lifetime
    and found out I was really only a frog after all?  That'd be it!
    No more!  No more soul, no anything!  Yeek!
         But wait, I'm human!  Yes, by golly, I am!  Now I'm superior!
    Yes, yes, yes!! I'm superior to animals and udders of God's kingdom!
    Or is that God's Kingdome?  Hey!  
         I've been gypped!  I thought this was the big cheese, the whole
    enchilada, and all I got was a circus tent full of Goddisms!  Drat!
    Where is the universe when I need it?  
         A gnat on a gnat on a gnat...oops!  Here we go again; gnats
    have no soul.  Maybe the whole frigging circus hasn't got any soul,
    either!  Hey! YOU!  Yes, you on the trapeze.  No, not you on the
    trapezius, you, the one swinging and hanging around!  Could you tell
    me when the next group of tourists arrive?  I wanna leave.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    How about......
    
    A&E are really just symbolic of the first *enlightened* man and
    woman, the rest of the folks (not being descended from them) are
    then savages who will not be judged favorably on judgement day....
    .....or....not....sounds a bit elitist....;-)
    
    just stirring the soup,
    
    guy

    Re .10
    
    Hey, I like it!
    
    Dave

PJ,

Sorry.  I have deleted it.

regards,

Girish

    
    So,If God did not created the homosephians or what ever they call
    then,where they came from?
    
    Why Eve eat the apple, why,why.
    Ariel. 

    Re .14 (Ariel):
    
    >So,If God did not created the homosephians or what ever they call
    >then,where they came from?
    
    It wouldn't be, in the previously discussed scenario, that God "didn't
    create" prehistoric humans; "Adam" would be the first of these to
    receive "life" in the form of becoming "a living soul."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Because she was supposed to... isn't it obvious? :-)  The apple made
    them conscious.  The story is told from the perspective of the child, 
    not the parent.  Everything happened exactly as planned.

    
    I have to agree with Mary (.17).  It was a setup.
    
    
    guy

    re.16
    Thanks Cliff for make me understand a little more about our (parents).
    
    re.17
    So Stanley,what Hitler,Stalin,Jin Johnes and other people like that,
    had done also was planned?.
    Ariel

    Of course it was planned... by themselves.
    
    Why do you assume that humanity is descended from the dark forces?
    A bizzare and dangerous and totally incorrect assumption, in my
    opinion.
    
    Do you see yourself as inherently evil?  You're not... you're
    inherently good.
    
    The story is told from a child's point of view... "I spilled my milk 
    at lunch.. I was bad.. and so Daddy got a divorce and left us".
    In fact, the behavior of the child had nothing to do with what happened
    between his parents that day.
    
    So too with humanity... they came to consciousness .... awake on a wild
    world.. free and alone... and like the child.. searching for
    explanations.
    

    Doesn't sound like the Light of Lights to me either, Marcos.

    Re .21 (Marcos):
    
    
>> As Steve pointed out, Adam became a "living soul" once God had breathed Life 
>> into him.  
>
>At what point in the evolution of mankind did the above supposedly happen?
    
    Since I forwarded the suggestion, I'd guesstimate asbout the time of
    Australopithecus.  They started killing and eating each other.
    
>A fallible god who made a mistake and had to alter his plans?
    
    Only from a human perspective.  
    
>> God tells them if they eat that fruit they will become like God, 
>
>A selfish god?
    
    More like one that gives His creations a chance to hold on top
    innocence.
    
>> He also tells them on the day they eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge they
>> will die.
>> She eats the fruit and sure enough she lives to tell about it.  
>
>A liar?
    
    No; the point here is that "die" refers to spirit, not body.
    
>> He also told Eve that because she had eaten first and had tempted Adam she
>> would "pay" for this transgression 
>
>A revengeful god?
    
    Probably one providing a first lesson of lost innocence.
    
    
>> God was quite upset
    
>Is this a god or a human?
    
    Probably more a human trying to explain God, wehich is inherently
    beyond our scope.
    
    Please recall, the story had to be explained in a way that makes it
    understandable to its audience, even as Jesus used parabl es to make
    His points.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    
>    Probably one providing a first lesson of lost innocence.
    
     Innocense is the absence of experience, Steve.  Were we born to 
     shelter ourselves from the experiences of living?  Is that what
     God intended when He created existence?  Obviously not or He wouldn't
     have created the material world in the first place.
     It's probably closer to the Truth that we misunderstood.
     

    re: .24 (Mary)
    
         A tangent here:
         During the last intensive (Lazaris) I went to (two weeks ago)
    the topic was the Goddess.  Well, as you are probably already aware,
    the Goddess has many faces--(and no one is capable of truly seeing
    *THE* Goddess, anyway)--and the faces range from the Naive one
    (the light maiden) to the fool.  Please note that both the naive
    one and the fool are "innocent."
        The fool, by the way, has both a negative and positive side
    (as do all the other faces.)  The negative face is that of the
    crazy, foolish one.  The positive face, however, enjoys life,
    has fun, finds happiness, has no pain, no insecurity, is carefree
    and spontaneous, is totally trusting and spontaneous.
        The naive one starts with the innocence of naivete but winds
    up (as the fool) with the innocence of experience.
    
    Frederick
    

    Well said, Fred..

    Re .27 (Marcos):
    
>> Since I forwarded the suggestion, I'd guesstimate asbout the time of
>> Australopithecus.  They started killing and eating each other.
>    
>Was the Australopithecus capable of understanding God's instructions and was he
>responsible enough to be condemned? What kind of god is this that punishes so 
>severely such a primitive being?   
    
    Well, not being God, I can't say whether or not, in the cosmic sense
    Mankind _was_ "condemned."  By losing its innocence, Mankind might have
    been "condemned" to aspire to higher things.  A child is relatively
    innocent and wants to grow up to get all an adult's privileges;
    however, that child is also "condemned" to take on all an adult's
    responsibilities, as well.  To a child at play, having to work for a
    living is punishment.
    
>Moreover I can hardly think of the earth about the time of the Australopithecus
>as a paradise, it was more like a hell. 
    
    To a creature in the natural state (i.e., innocent), it might appear in
    a different perspective than it does to us.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Re .27 (Marcos)
    
    I realize your note was not directed towards me, but in response to
    your question about Australopithecus being responsible to be condemned,
    I have to agree with Steve on this. Speaking from what I know of the
    Catholic religion, of which you (I think) know quite a bit about, you
    may even be a member, children are born with original sin. What kind of
    God is this that punishes innocent children with sins that they
    themselves have not committed? At least, if Steve's theory of the
    beginnings of "soul" are correct, the Aus. would only be responsible
    for atoning for their own sins, not their ancestor's.
    
    Having been brought up Catholic, and grown enough to realize it's not
    for me, I have often wondered how God can be all merciful, and still 
    not forgive this "original sin" once and for all.
    
    
    Marilyn 
    

    
    Marcos,
    
    No. I was merely responding to the following:
    
    >Was the Australopithecus capable of understanding God's instructions
    >and was he responsible enough to be condemned? What kind of God is
    >this that punishes so severely such a primitive being?
    
    My point is that the God worshipped by the Catholic Church (and
    probably others) is the kind of God that taints newborns with "original 
    sin". This sin is not of their own doing, but an extreme example of 
    the "sins of the fathers visited upon the children". Given this
    interpretation of the "all-merciful" is it any wonder that He would
    hold the Australopithecines accountable for their own actions?
    After all, they at least committed their offense, by "eating of the
    forbidden fruit". Children don't even get to have this fun of
    committing their own sin, but are born paying for someone else's.
    
    Am I making myself any clearer?
    
    Marilyn     
    
      

I think there are two stumbling blocks for modern westerners in understanding 
or accepting the doctrine of original sin. 

First, the doctrine of original sin was first formulated in the cultures of
late Antiquity, which were far less individualistic than ours.  (That's the
*doctrine*.  The scriptures that the doctrine is based on are, of course, much
older.)  In such cultures (and they are still quite common), it goes without 
saying that descendants bear both shames and honors passed down to them by 
their ancestors.

Second, we tend to think of sin in terms of a criminal-court metaphor of crime
and punishment.  The Bible also uses the metaphor of standing for judgement 
before a court, but the usual kind of trial, I have heard, was not a criminal
trial but a suit of one party against another.  (And by the way, in ancient 
Israel, the judge doubled as defense council.)

Putting the two together, the metaphor for original sin is not "You have been 
found guilty of crimes committed by someone else entirely," but "Your family 
wronged me and so, as a member of that family, you owe me."

But it is important to remember that all this *is* a metaphor, and if one 
metaphor does not illuminate, you can try another.  For instance, psychology
has recently popularized the concept of the dysfunctional family.  Neurotic
parents raise neurotic children, and these neurotic people not only suffer
various pains, they inflict them; any child born to such a family is just
about doomed to end up making itself obnoxious as well as suffering from the
obnoxiousness of its relatives.  (Just about doomed.  But what has been doomed 
can be re-doomed, that is, "redeemed.")

But of course the whole human race is one greatly extended family; the 
doctrine of original sin can be taken as the simple (and very believable) 
statement that this family is a dysfunctional one.

Or take a shift east.  In eastern philosophy, it is, I gather, a commonplace
that the bulk of humanity are unenlightened, living in illusion and
attachment.  "Illusion and attachment" are not quite the same as "original
sin," but they aren't completely different either.  They have this much in
common: the victims of either are prone to temptation and folly.

A minister I know summarized the doctrine simply as "taking responsibility for 
your share of human orneriness."

Earl Wajenberg

    Earl,
    
    Thanks for entering that. Perhaps I've never really thought much about
    original sin, except as it always created a confusion in my mind. Jesus
    was supposed to have come to redeem us, or to forgive all our sins, yet
    to this day, children are still born with "original sin". Again, I am
    only referring to the Catholic Church since it's the one I know about.
    
    I guess I'll have to live without really understanding the difference
    between atoning and being forgiven for our own sins, but having to
    endure original sin until humanity is no longer.
    
    
    Marilyn

    Don't confuse dogma with reality.

    .34
    
    It isn't just humanity that's disfunctional.  What kind of a father
    would sacrifice his only son?  What were his dying words?  Oh yes..
    "Father... why hast thou forsaken me"

    
    Re: Catholic church and original sin
    
    I would like to add my interpretation of Catholic baptism.
    
    Having just had to go through the little classes they make you attend
    to get a child baptized Catholic, the child is not really punished -
    the church holds that even unbaptized children will "go to heaven". 
    The baptism is for the parents and godparents - through this they vow
    to raise the child into the Catholic faith (they don't say anything
    about raising them into other faiths as well, though).  This is why
    first communion and confirmation are done at later ages - the child
    learns enough to choose for themselves and confirm or deny the choices the
    parents made for them.  It was not really made clear, through all that,
    where original sin fits in, but then, I never really asked a priest
    about it.
    
    There may have been a time when the church used "original sin" to get
    parents to commit at an early stage to raise the child Catholic, but I
    do not believe they use it much as they used to (not saying that some
    priests don't still try, but I don't listen to those types).
    
    I do like the interpretations given in the last couple of replies
    (dysfunctional families, re-doomed).
    
    Beth

    That's not what they used to tell us when I was a kid in Catholic
    school, Beth.... I guess things change over the years.

VAXRIO::MARCOS                                       
    
>This is another absurdity we hear in many a church often. If Jesus is God's
>*only* son then who is our father? I wonder how this kind of statement has been
>running unscathed for so long.

    I know... I never understood how they could believe that.
    
>I presume that God didn't sacrifice anyone and that it was Jesus Himself who
>agreed to descend on this cuckoo's nest to help us.

    I think so too... 
    
>It's a moot point that Jesus really said that or if those words were put into 
>his mouth. Anyway it's a good question to be asked to the church.
    
    I imagine at that point, He was feeling abandoned.... and his watching
    mother must have felt very bitter... who knows what was really said.
    
    He was a magickian of the First Order and deserved a better fate
    than that.  
    
    The ways of Chaos are strange and unfathomable sometimes, I guess.
    Life isn't always fair.

    Re .37 (Mary):
    
    >It isn't just humanity that's disfunctional.  What kind of a father
    >would sacrifice his only son? ...
    
    In human terms, only one who would do so for some transcendent good;
    however, God's perspective might be more comprehensive than ours.
    
    > ............................  What were his dying words?  Oh yes..
    >"Father... why hast thou forsaken me"
     
    Actually, His final words appear to have been, "It is finished," (John
    19:30), shortly before which He'd said, "Father, unto thy hands I
    commend my spirit."  His previous words on the cross were, "My God, my
    God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
    
    Those words are the opening of the 22nd Psalm, which is sometimes
    called "the lament of the crucified man."  The whole psalm is a bit
    long, but a few selected lines may give the flavor: 
    
    [M God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?  Why art thou so far from
    helping me and my roasring?  O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou
    hearest not; and in the night seasonm, but am not quiet. ... Be not far
    from me; for trouble is near; for there is no help.  ... For dogs have
    compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced
    my hands and feet. ... They part my garments among them, and cast lots
    upon my vesture. ....]
    
    Re .39 (Marcos):
    
>This is another absurdity we hear in many a church often. If Jesus is God's
>only* son then who is our father? I wonder how this kind of statement has been
>unning unscathed for so long.
    
    I bel ieve Jesus is given as God's only _begotten_ son. Other "sons"
    were created directly (i.e., have no "humanity"); Jesus shared _human_
    life with us.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

HELIX::KALLIS 
    
>    In human terms, only one who would do so for some transcendent good;
>    however, God's perspective might be more comprehensive than ours.
    
     One cannot commit an act of evil and claim it is in the name of 
     some transcendent good, Steve.  To sacrifice life to raise power
     is an act of a black magickian.  I believe God wouldn't do such
     a thing because I 'see' God as the Light of Lights but there are
     many Gods and not all of them are in service to The One.
     An elemental God of the dark forces would sacrifice a human life 
     and what better candidate than his own son.
    
     I don't want to talk about this anymore.  We're straying from the
     topic.
    
>    Actually, His final words appear to have been, "It is finished," (John
>    19:30), shortly before which He'd said, "Father, unto thy hands I
>    commend my spirit."  His previous words on the cross were, "My God, my
>    God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
    
     Were God and Father too different beings as they appear from what was
     said?
    
    >[M God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?  Why art thou so far from
    >helping me and my roasring?  O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou
    >hearest not; and in the night seasonm, but am not quiet. ... Be not far
    >from me; for trouble is near; for there is no help.  ... For dogs have
    >compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced
    >my hands and feet. ... They part my garments among them, and cast lots
    >upon my vesture. ....]
    
    It must have gotten out of control really fast.  He probably couldn't
    avoid it getting out of hand.  
    
>    I believe Jesus is given as God's only _begotten_ son. Other "sons"
>    were created directly (i.e., have no "humanity"); Jesus shared _human_
>    life with us.
    
    Then who 'begot' the rest of us humans, Steve ... if it wasn't God?
    

Marcos and Mary,

I'm sorry that you have so much ill feeling against this religion.  I don't 
want to battle about it, but I don't want to leave misunderstandings about it
either.

Re .37:

    "What kind of a father would sacrifice his only son?"

One that very much loved those for whom the sacrifice was made (John 3:16). 
One that could raise the son from the dead.  One whose son had volunteered for
the sacrifice. 

    "Father... why hast thou forsaken me"

The words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  They are the 
opening words of Psalm 22.  

Re .39:

    "It's a moot point that Jesus really said that or if those words were put 
     into his mouth. Anyway it's a good question to be asked to the church."

They are very likely to be a true quote of Christ on the cross exactly because
they are so awkward.  And they have been discussed by the church.  It's 
guesswork to figure out exactly what he meant by that quote, but two of the
possibilities I've heard are:  (1) He had in mind the whole psalm, which
starts despondent but becomes triumphal, or (2) The height of the sacrifice
was not just death but to experience (temporarily) the separation from God
that is damnation.

    "I presume that God didn't sacrifice anyone and that it was Jesus
     Himself who agreed to descend on this cuckoo's nest to help us."

The two are not mutually exclusive.  The voluntary descent is the first move 
of the sacrifice.  It's a very old principle that all sacrifices must be 
willing.

    "If Jesus is God's *only* son then who is our father?  I wonder how this 
     kind of statement has been running unscathed for so long."

Probably because most people who bothered to think about it realized the 
"fatherhood" involved was a metaphor.  Since God is a spirit and not a male 
organism, He is not a literal father.  Christ is described as God's "only-
begotten son" to express a relationship unique in the universe and much more
intimate than literal, physical fatherhood and sonship.

In other places in the Bible, in other metaphors, Christ is called God's
word (John 1:1), lamb, (by implication) bride and body (1 Corinthians 11:3), 
and (in some interpretations) master craftswoman (Proverbs 8:27-30).  It's
just that the "son" metaphor is used so often, people forget all the others. 

In other senses found in the Bible, the angels, Adam, Israel, all Christians,
and all humans have been called "children" of God.  All these senses are
metaphorical. That does not mean they are meaningless or trivial; it means
they are new meanings, developed from the old literal one. 

Earl Wajenberg

    IMO,
    
    Misunderstandings occur because of those who insist on interpreting
    scripture as history rather than as metaphor.
    
    Anyone who is interested in pursuing this line of reasoning
    can refer to the works of Joseph Campbell.  A very accessible
    introduction to the works of Campbell is _The Power of Myth_,
    either in video or book format.
    
    I am not here saying that Campbell is "more correct" than Kallis;
    only that whose who have difficulty with biblical literacy may
    find more rewarding paths to follow.
    
    /bruce

>>    In human terms, only one who would do so for some transcendent good;
>>   however, God's perspective might be more comprehensive than ours.
>   
>    One cannot commit an act of evil and claim it is in the name of 
>    some transcendent good, Steve.  To sacrifice life to raise power
>    is an act of a black magickian.

     But you're the one who's defining a sacrifice in order to "raise
    power," whatever that's supposed to mean.  "Transcendent good" means
    that whatever good is involved _transcends_ any other aspect of the
    proceedings.  And note that I put that in _human_ terms, not the terms
    of any god, much less God's.

    >...............................   I believe God wouldn't do such
    >a thing because I 'see' God as the Light of Lights but there are
    >many Gods and not all of them are in service to The One.  ...

    Okay, that's your personal religion, which might encompass aspects of,
    but is not congruent with most forms of Christianity.

>>    Actually, His final words appear to have been, "It is finished," (John
>>   19:30), shortly before which He'd said, "Father, unto thy hands I
>>   commend my spirit."  His previous words on the cross were, "My God, my
>>   God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
>   
>    Were God and Father too different beings as they appear from what was
>    said?

    When Jesus was addressing God as His Father, He used "Father"; the very
    fact He said, "My God, my God ..." indicates He was reciting the 22nd
    Psalm.  Earlier, as His cross was erected on Calvary, Jesus said,
    "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."  there was a
    clear differentiation between Him repeating a well-known prayer and a
    direct communication with His father.

   >It must have gotten out of control really fast.  He probably couldn't
   >avoid it getting out of hand.  
    
    I'm lost here ... what might have "got out of control"?

   >Then who 'begot' the rest of us humans, Steve ... if it wasn't God?
    
    "Beget" means to produce a child through procreation.  Our parents
    "begat" the rest of us; Jesus was born among us as any of us were born.
    This might appear to be a subtle distinction, but it isn't.

    Steve Kallis,  Jr.

     

CUPMK::WAJENBERG 
    
>I'm sorry that you have so much ill feeling against this religion.  I don't 
>want to battle about it, but I don't want to leave misunderstandings about it
>either.

    I have no "ill feeling" against the religion, Earl.  "judge not less
    you be judged"... I'm in no position to judge anyone else's religion.
    I just don't understand it.. that's all.
    
    What you and Steve are saying makes a lot of sense though.

    Marcos,
    
    I'm the first to admit I'm no expert on Christian doctrine, but I think
    you're confusing two different aspects of Jesus's divinity and Mary's 
    being free from sin. It is a mistake commonly made.
    
    Immaculate Conception is a term used to refer to Mary having been born
    free from sin. Since all her (other) children were conceived (it is
    assumed) during wedlock, she was still free from sin. If Jesus was 
    conceived by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the same applies.
    
    The conception and subsequent birth of Jesus is referred to as the 
    Virgin Birth, for obvious reasons. There are at least three different
    interpretations of this. Two of them were told to me during my many
    years of Catholic schooling. The third is my own, developed as a result 
    of reading about the historical evidence of Jesus. I will not engage in
    debate about it, since it my personal opinion only.

    1) Jesus was conceived by the grace of the Holy Spirit without human
       male involvement.
    
    2) Jesus was conceived as a "joint" effort between God and man, that
       is, Mary coupled with a man (Joseph?), and His humanity was inherited
       from this man, but His "soul" or divinity came from God.
    
    3) Jesus was an (extra)ordinary man, who revolutionized the world by
       adopting teachings already in existence at the time of His birth,
       and adding His charisma and sincere belief in these teachings. This 
       does not lessen His divinity in my eyes, for I believe we are all
       "divine", moreover it gives Him more credit, in achieving all He 
       did without having any more help than the rest of us. He was an
       entity that through His incredible enlightenment in that lifetime,
       was able to ascend to join God immediately after His work here was
       done.
    
    Hope this helps, 
    
    
    Marilyn
    
    
    
    this as it is a personal opinion. 

    For an interesting perspective on what [some] adherents 
    of the sky god are doing/trying_to_do to this country,
    see _Monotheism and Its Discontents_ by Gore Vidal.
    It's published in _The Nation_ magazine, July 13,1992.
    The same article also appears in _The Boston Phoenix_
    for July 10, 1992.  
    
    If you cannot locate either of these publications,
    I would be most happy to send you a copy of the 
    article if you send a SASE to 
        Bruce Laru
        POB 2372
        Littleton MA 01460

      Two questions.
    
          1)If God died for ours sins,is that means that we w'll go
            to heaven when we all die?.,Goods and bads.
    
         2)And if we goe to hell (seoul) or what ever,is that means that
           we are going to be inside of a lake of fire? or that ours souls
           w'll never raise from death.
     Loosing my religion.
    Ariel

        There's no torture worse than the torture each person puts
    themselves (sic) through.  Hell was a great concept used by those
    who were into cheap hits of power and then later by those who
    were able to manipulate others by their fears.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re .50 Marcos,
    
    I'm not sure I understand your note, Marcos. First you agree that the
    mistake of confusing the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception is
    a commonly made one, then you seem to keep referring to the word
    immaculate as meaning virgin. The real meaning is free from stain or 
    blemish (read also sin) or pure. No where does virgin come in, unless
    some would like to make women who are no longer virgins as blemished,
    stained or impure.
    
    Secondly, I don't understand the rest of your note and its reference to
    our not being the only ones in the universe and Jesus stating that He
    did not come to change the Law, but to reinforce it. Actually, I've
    alwys found trouble with thet particular passage, doesn't He somewhere
    else ask us to forget the law(s) we lived with prior to His coming and
    live with the New Law? Sorry, I can't quote the exact passage, or refer
    to where it's found, no doubt a Bible scholar here can point us to the
    place I mean.
    
    Marilyn

I agree Fredrick. Hell is a white-man's concept to keep those masses in fear. 
I have been thought that there is no hell - our hell is here on earth. 

Sam

Re .57 (in re .55):

Mary is still right.  It is true that the Catholic church teaches Mary 
remained virgin all her life, but the doctrine called Immaculate Conception 
does not refer to that; it refers to Mary being born without original sin.
It is not a matter of interpreting the Bible; it's a matter of looking up the 
definition of "immaculate conception" in any standard reference work on 
Catholicism.

What is a matter of interpretation is the text from Mark that you quote.
The words translated "brother" and "sisters" can also be translated to
refer to more distant relatives.  Whether that is a plausible translation
is a separate issue.
Re .58:

Whether or not earth is hell, racism is one of earth's least pleasing 
features.   No matter which race it's directed against.

    Re .60:
    
    I don't know any further details about this doctrine of the Catholic
    church, but there is a good chance that it is discussed in the
    conference LYCEUM::Catholic-Theology.  You could try there.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    (At the risk of being pellited by thrown shoes and cries 
    of "Take it to RELIGION...")
    
    From the little I've observed about Christianity, there's 
    considerable difference between different sects within and
    outside the RC Church on doctrines like Mary worship and 
    the afterlife. It's not possible to find a single definitive
    answer to most questions of "What do christians believe about..."
    
    Also, I _think_ that some of the early Christian philosophers (who
    would have influenced later teachings on the afterlife) were black,
    especially the ones from Northern Africa. Augustine of Hippo comes
    to mind as a possibility.
    
    Ed E.
    

    
    Re various (Marcos and Earl)
    
    Earl, I assume you meant Marilyn is right in your last (or penultimate)
    reply. It goes without saying that Mary would be right ;^)
    
    But, seriously, the topic of whether Mary remained a Virgin is an
    interesting one. I refer you back to my note about the 3 (or more) 
    possibilities as to how Jesus was conceived. Both one and two were
    told to me at different times in my Catholic education. The first,
    which I'll call the standard theory was the one we grew up being told.
    The second one was told to me and others who were taking a contemporary
    Christianity class (don't remember the exact name). Basically, this 
    high school class (taken during senior year to 17-year olds) discussed
    the differences between what the Bible said and what it was interpreted
    to mean. 
    
    I took this in 1971, so as far backas this, and probably much farther back,
    members of the Church hierarchy were questioning the literalness (is
    that a word?) of the Bible, and more importantly, teaching young minds
    to question it themselves. This class was taught by a nun, and my
    school was not a progressive school, so I'm confident that she was not 
    teaching heresy, in the mind of the local Church powers-that-be.
    
    It is increasingly difficult these days to understand what is true 
    Catholic doctrine or just tradition, in any case it is to me although 
    admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I think,
    though that it is a shame hat Catholicism demands so much belief of its
    membership about things which are, at least to the modern mind,
    improbable. I know God can do even the impossible ;^)
    
    With the sophistication of the modern person, is it any wonder the 
    Church membership keeps falling? Before anyone brings up the argument
    that truth doesn't change because times change, I'm not talking about
    that. I'm talking about things like the Council of Nicea (?) where
    arbitrary decisions were made about what was canon and what wasn't. 
    
    If they just relaxed a little, and allowed people to think for
    themselves, more would stay (IMHO).
    
    
    Marilyn   
    

    Re .62:
    
>   From the little I've observed about Christianity, there's 
>   considerable difference between different sects within and
>   outside the RC Church on doctrines like Mary worship and 
>   the afterlife. It's not possible to find a single definitive
>   answer to most questions of "What do christians believe about..."
    
    That's a valid observation, and it has (almost) always been thus.  In
    the 4th century, the Council of Nicea addressed this problem by
    producing the Nicean Creed, which is still used in both the Eastern
    (Greek/Russian/Coptic ...) Orthodox Churches, plus the Roman Catholic
    Church, the Anglican (Church of England, Episcopal ...) Communion, and
    several of the Lutheran demoninations.  Even earlier, the epistles of
    St. Paul to the various churches of his time are offered to bring a
    common understanding (and no small dose of correction) to those early
    Christian communities.
    
>   Also, I _think_ that some of the early Christian philosophers (who
>   would have influenced later teachings on the afterlife) were black,
>   especially the ones from Northern Africa. Augustine of Hippo comes
>   to mind as a possibility.
    
    Undoubtedly, the Ethiopian eunuch who was converted by St. Philip (Acts
    8:26-40) was black.  He's described as "an important official in
    charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians".  There
    is speculation that he is responsible for the early Christian community
    in Ethiopia (and further speculation that the Ark of the Covenant is
    hidden in an ancient church there).
    
    Palestinian Jews of the time, probably including Jesus, were several
    shades darker than we usually picture them.  The fair-skinned and
    sometimes blue-eyed Jesus that we've seen pictured is clearly an
    artifact of a Northern European "spin" on the imagery and has NOTHING
    to do with either Scripture or theology.
    
    It's likely that many of the prominant early Christians were dark-
    skinned (African and otherwise).  From the Jewish perspective, ALL
    non-Jews are "gentiles", so color is/was irrelevant.  For that matter,
    there were a fair number of women who made significant contributions to
    the development of the early Church.  Unfortunately, the filter of
    history has been less than kind to them all.

    Bill,
    I was intrigued by your comment regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Can
    you elaborate or point my to a source where I can read more of the
    possibility that it's in Ethiopia?
    
    Marilyn

    Re .65:
    
>   I was intrigued by your comment regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Can
>   you elaborate or point my to a source where I can read more of the
>   possibility that it's in Ethiopia?
    
    I wish I had a written source.  There was a story on National Public
    Radio a week or so ago that mentioned this possibility.  It seems the
    reason it's being kept secret is because church leaders there are
    afraid the Israelis will swoop in and take the Ark from them.  I found
    it VERY intriguing, but I'm content to leave it in the "speculative"
    category.

RE: .65 (Bill Kindel)

>    Radio a week or so ago that mentioned this possibility.  It seems the
>    reason it's being kept secret is because church leaders there are
>    afraid the Israelis will swoop in and take the Ark from them.

    I heard the story too, and I'm going to keep my eye out for the book
    (which may be a little hard since I do not remember either the author's
    or the book's name).

    But it is not, by any means being kept secret.  The Ethiopian Church
    has claimed for centuries that it has the Ark and its possesion of that
    artifact is a major feature in their beliefs/rituals.  They have not
    made the supposed artifact available to independent experts for
    evaluation and the general opinion has been that the claim is not true,
    one way or another.

    A journalist has done research and has proposed that they actually may
    have it.  He presents what sounds like plausible senario by which they
    would have obtained the Ark.  Accademics have not rushed to support his
    claims.  He made it sound like their objections were due to
    conservatism and "turf" -- which is not a priori unlikely, but we got
    their arguments filtered through him, so there is no telling.

    What you are remembering is that the interviewer and/or the author (I
    forget who said exactly what) speculated on the consequences if the
    author's thesis was believed.  But there is no "secret", per se.

				    Topher

        To me, that's all a bunch of rot!  So, someone's had the
    ark for over 2,000 years?  Really?  I mean, this is such a powerful
    symbol of "God," isn't it?  Well, then, what has anybody done with
    it?  Have they used it to do "God's" work?  Have they used it to
    better humankind?  Have they used it generously and in consideration
    of the "salvation" of humanity?  
        The answer is that it's all fiction.  To the extent that any of
    the events happened, they have been glamorized and fictionalized to
    such an extent as to mystify and glorify those who propose the 
    tenets.
        Wake up, anyone who believes this stuff!
    
    Frederick
    

    Frederick,
    
    Why are you so upset about what someone else may believe?
    
    /bruce

    re: .69 (Bruce)
    
        Why do I care, you mean?  It's precisely because I *do* care.
    People are desecrating the planet and each other out of sheer
    stupidity, Bruce.  They're wasting precious time and humanity
    chasing fantasies that they're being coerced or blackmailed into
    believing.  There's too much to do of real value---there's too
    much spirituality that is being ignored and ripped off.
    Why spend time chasing rainbows?  
        No, Bruce, if people want to believe this or stuff like it
    or something else, it *is* up to them.  But it's up to *me* to
    do the best I can to demonstrate another way to view reality.
    If *I* don't do it, if I don't take responsibility for myself
    and the world around me, who is?  I have no intention of being
    snowballed into looney-tune beliefs, thank you very much.  And
    I have just as much entitlement to my expression of beliefs as
    anyone else.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .70 (Frederick):

    >..................................  But it's up to *me* to
    >do the best I can to demonstrate another way to view reality.
    >If *I* don't do it, if I don't take responsibility for myself
    >and the world around me, who is? 

    I can see taking responsibility for yourself.  However, nobody's
    holding you responsible for the world.  ;-)

    In .68, you said,

    >    To me, that's all a bunch of rot!  So, someone's had the
    >ark for over 2,000 years?  Really?  I mean, this is such a powerful
    >symbol of "God," isn't it?  Well, then, what has anybody done with
    >it? ....

    Well, it was meant as an object to focus on the worship of God. 
    Outside of _Raiders of the Lost Ark_, and possibly some von Danniken
    books, it wasn't supposed to be used as a "device," in the sense of
    "working tool."

    Now in the spirit of "valuing differences":

    > ............................ I have no intention of being
    >snowballed into looney-tune beliefs, thank you very much.  And
    >I have just as much entitlement to my expression of beliefs as
    >anyone else.                      
     
    You certainly have every right to express beliefs; however, there are
    many belief systems here with which I have disagreement, and I don't
    call them names.  I believe one can say "misguided," or "unenlightened"
    without ruffling feathers unduly.

    The Ark of the Covenant is something shared in the Jewish, Christian,
    and Moslem faiths, and, if he or she was shown it, any Jew, Christian,
    or Moslem would most likely view the Ark with deep respect, perhaps
    awe.   That you might say, "Big deal!" wouldn't change their
    perception of it.

    Dislike or even hate a religion if you will; however, there are gentler
    ways to express your view.

    Steve Kallis, Jr.   

    re: .71 (Steve)
    
         Guess I'm not feeling particularly diplomatic today, Steve.
    
    Frederick
    

                                                                        
    Regarding Jesus 'dying for our sins', and the 'being saved through 
    the blood' point that was brought up...
        
    From the yogic perspective (not the postures, but the deeper meanings
    of yoga), a spiritual master can take on and work out the karma of
    other people through their own body, if and when appropriate.  Therefore, 
    when Christ died on the cross, He did reconcile the people who were 
    living at that time.  (The Karma Kounter got set to 0. (;^)
    
    As for today, those who follow this path don't get to 'become saved', 
    then go out and do really bad things, and then think they're not going 
    to reap the consequences of their actions because Christ died for them 
    some 2000 years ago...but they're automatically saved, so it doesn't
    matter.  It doesn't work that way.  
    
    Cindy

    
           Somebody Ask me why I'm loosing my religion?.
    I think It was Marcos,
           But look around and see what is going on in this planet.
    You can't trust nobody anymore.You can't leave your little kids
    with nobody anymore.Look at this priests or church leaders that
    all what they care is for MONEY./look what happened with Rev.Jones
    in Guyana,Jimmy Swart or what ever is his name.
    The only religion that I believe right now,is the one I carry with me
    in my hearth.I always try to do good and help any one even if that
    person don't believe in what I believe.I respect all religions,
    and the way you see things.But Don't force me to believe in what you
    do because is not going to work.I'm not saying that any one of you
    are trying but in my private life it had happened.
     I was baptised in a Catholic church,but I never followed.Sometimes
    when I feel confused with this life I open the bible at any page and
    I read and folow what it says.And that is what keep me going.So
    you see my friends I have my own religion.
    
    What I like if any one of you could explain me is why,I heard people
    said or some religions,that when Jesus return to the earth he is not
    going to touch it(walk or put his feet on earth).
    Thanks 
    Ariel.
    

re:                       <<< Note 1689.74 by JPLAIN::AGOSTO >>>

�    The only religion that I believe right now,is the one I carry with me
�    in my hearth.I always try to do good and help any one even if that
�    person don't believe in what I believe.I respect all religions,

     
     That, IMO,  is the only true religion!

     /bruce

    The only religion that I believe right now,is the one I carry with me
    in my hearth.I always try to do good and help any one even if that
    person don't believe in what I believe.I respect all religions,
    and the way you see things.But Don't force me to believe in what you
    do because is not going to work.I'm not saying that any one of you
    are trying but in my private life it had happened.


This is what I am finding also. Carlos Santana said something like this last 
night at his concert in Nashua. He said something to the effect that all 
these politics and religions don't work. They are failing. What works is to 
use the heart, not the head and compassion and love and acceptance for 
others. That's what I am finding on my path. I sometimes get very angry 
thinking about my former Catholism and I get in the same mode that Fredrick 
was in a few notes back. I agree with him and I start saying things like why 
can't these people see these things, why are they still guided by fear, etc. 
But, I am learning, in my Native teachings, that everyone has a 
inner-strength and it is not my job to solve problems of others and "make 
them see." They need to find their own path.

Just my opinions and growth,

Sam

    So it's true now that Adan & Eve were blacks.
    What next?.

    Re .79:
    
>It's doubtful all five races could have "evolved" from one single race.
    
    Well, it's a matter of opinion, but IMO I can't see how they couldn't
    ha ve.  All humans care cross-fertile, and that means something very
    tight genetically.  If thewre wasn't a common rootstock, it's hard to
    understand the ability to interbreed.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    As far as I know, there are no genetic "markers" for "race."
    "race" is a cultural construct only.
    
    
    /bruce

The lead article in a recent issue of Scientific American dealt with
this. It was about the theory that all humans currently alive are very
probably descended from a single woman who lived on the African
continent. The article discussed tracing descent by mitochondrial DNA
(which can mutate, but doesn't "mix" like normal cell DNA). It showed
that they were able to identify "race" in some way, but I'm not sure
that this disproves what Bruce said (that there are no actual genetic
markers yet identified for race).

However, it's clear that since skin pigmentation and facial features
are inherited, it will ultimately be possible to identify specific gene
sequences which are responsible. The genetic supremacists will have
their day. But, of course, they will be wrong in their conclusions, as usual.

    Re .81:                                                        
    
>   As far as I know, there are no genetic "markers" for "race."
>   "race" is a cultural construct only.
    
    Taxonomically speaking, "race" == "variety" == "breed" == "strain"
    depending upon which species is being discussed.  The distinctions
    used are completely arbitrary, since (by definition) all individuals of
    a species can cross-breed successfully.  The grouping of individuals
    into subspecies based upon shared characteristics is largely a means of
    simplifying genetic studies in the absence of complete bloodlines.
    
    The Third Reich spent a lot of energy defining its "Master Race" such
    that eastern Europeans (especially the Slavs) were deemed "subhuman".
    As such, they were enslaved by the millions and often sterilized in
    order to prevent pollution of the Arian "race".  There were even
    published criteria by which one could be measured to infer the "purity"
    of Arian blood.
    
    The diversity of human "races" CAN be explained by Darwinian principles
    even given a common ancestor.  Take skin tone, for example.  Dark skin
    provides much better protection from the effects of the always-high sun
    in equatorial climes, some of which (susceptability to infection and/or
    dehydration from severe sunburn comes to mind) could have been fatal in
    a hunter-gatherer society.  On the other hand, the polar climes offer
    far less sunlight and light skin is an advantage in assuring adequate
    vitamin D production.  I'll wave my hands at the multitude of other
    characteristics that have been used to classify human races.  Between
    "natural selection" (there's no accounting for taste 8^), "survival of
    the fittest", and random mutation, humanity has become quite diverse
    in the course of tens of thousands of generations.

  Re .82 (Mike)

>  ... the theory that all humans currently alive are very
> probably descended from a single woman who lived on the African continent.

  So either this supports the importance of unmarried mothers or it's
  historical proof that the Virgin Mary wasn't the first ! :-)

  Methinks that to trace the root-stock back to _one_ particular person [rather
  than an unspecified group] is just as ridiculous an idea as adding all the
  time periods in the Bible to get a definite date for the creation ...

  Frank

    Frank,
    
    I thought so at first, then I thought it through -- and read what's
    others had worked out.
    
    The latter first:  You know how families are said to have "died out"
    if they fail to produce a male descendant in one generation?  Well,
    the same thing happens in genetic terms if there are no female
    descendants in one generation.  So, families have been "dying out"
    for tens of thousands of years, and it is statistically possible that
    we are down to one (female-descended) family.  Boggle.
    
    Now mine:  A few million years ago, our species went bipedal.  Then,
    for some reason, we started evolving in the direction of greater
    intelligence.  This meant bigger brains, which meant that mothers
    had to have widers hips, or die out -- both familially and personally.
    So they did that.  But! There comes a point at which wider hips mean
    poorer walking.  (It's also why we have `bad backs'.)  Then the
    (surviving) mothers were producing premature infants, which had
    relatively smaller heads.  This became more and more extreme until
    women were producing babies after a gestation period of only nine
    months instead of fifteen-eighteen months.  Boggle.  So, we are
    descended from that line -- which has to start somewhere.  Boggle.
    
    						Ann B.

    It is not only possible, but rather likely.  In fact, rather unlikely
    to be otherwise.

    No one is saying that we are descended from only one individual, but
    that if we trace back all of our strict matriarchal lines (our mother's
    mother's mother's ... mother), then they will eventually all converge
    on a single individual, dubbed Eve.  She was not the only human
    individual of her time, nor even the only human of the time from which
    our contemporaries are descended, nor even the only female human from
    which our contemporararies.  But some of her female contemporaries had
    only sons, or only grandsons, or only great-grandsons, etc.

    If you work out the statistics, a single matriarchal line will almost
    certainly capture a group like this for even a fairly large initial
    population.

    Here's an experiment.  Take 10 plastic poker chips of one color
    representing "female", and another 10 of another color representing
    "male".

    Take 5 of the female chips and, using an ordinary felt-tip pen (which
    you can rub off the chips easily, with a damp cloth) letter them A, B,
    C, D, E.  Also take 5 of the male chips (we can leave them unmarked for
    the first generation, since it will have no effect).  Put the 5 male
    chips in one container (a bag or hat or whatever, for random drawing --
    we'll call this the father-bag) and the 5 female chips in another (the
    mother-bag).  Finally put the remaining 10 chips in a third container
    (the offspring-bag).

    Now take one chip from the mother bag, one chip from the father bag
    (you don't really have to do this part, it doesn't really affect
    anything, but it completes the picture), and two chips from the
    offspring bag.  This forms a family.  Copy the letter on the female
    parent onto each of the two offspring.  Repeat this 5 times.  Now
    clean the parent chips and put them into the offspring bag to form
    the next generation.  Put the offspring chips into the appropriate
    parent-bags.  Now repeat the process until all the offspring have the
    same letter on them.  You'll probably be surprised at how few
    generations it takes.

    Obviously this isn't very realistic.  The population is way too stable
    -- always a perfect sex ratio, always the same population size,
    everyone always paired off with a single parner, every couple always
    has 2 offspring, never more, never less (and especially never zero) --
    but it should give you the idea.

				    Topher

    
    re. 87 (Topher)
    
    >from which our contemporararies.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
        Employees have been TFSO'd for less....;-)
    
    
    guy

        When they said that there may be more than one Adam & Eve,Can it
     be possible that there were one for the chinese,portuguese,french,
     ect,ect.I heard something like that about Nhoas Ark.That in every
     continent there were one Nhoa but Chinese,Indian, Russian ect,ect.
     Do anybody knows anything about this?.
     Thanks
     Ariel                                 
    

    >  Re .82 

    >... the theory that all humans currently alive are very probably
    >descended from a single woman who lived on the African continent.

    She must have been a very fecund person.

    Jamie.

    Re .82,.90:

.82 ... the theory that all humans currently alive are very probably
.82 descended from a single woman who lived on the African continent.

.90 She must have been a very fecund person.
    
    What's this, Word power? 8^)
    
    In any event, "Eve" and her progeny wouldn't have to try THAT hard to
    populate the world to the nearly 6 billion people now alive.  Once
    infant mortality fell below 50%, it should have been a piece of cake.
    
    If the population increased by 10% per (25-year) generation, it would
    take under 6000 years (236 generations) to reach 6 billion people. 
    Allowing 100,000 years (4000 generations) makes it even easier; using
    20-year "generations" does too.