Cain's Wife, AKA Sister?

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Well said, Contrarian!

 

[Pacridge]

Well said, Contrarian!

I'll second that.

 

[shake3]

The irony is, as pointed out in this thread, those who have "faith" inherently are stating they are the "chosen" righteous people (Christian, Jew, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslim... pick your franchise) and all share an underlying arrogance as being the one who chose correctly...[you can read the rest in Contrarian's actual post, but I want to save space]

I agree that intolerance is indeed "at the heart of every sect," to the extent that when it comes down to choosing between contradictory ideas, one idea is accepted and the others rejected. By definition, then, those who believe the contradictory ideas must be considered wrong. But all this can be said of any belief system, not merely those commonly labeled religious. True atheists, for example, in order to accept the idea that God does not exist, must reject the idea that those who believe in God are correct. Stating the obvious? Yes, but it is nothing more than this same black-and-white distinction that causes members of a religion such as Christianity to believe that unbelievers will be eternally punished. To say this is always accompanied by arrogance is to over-generalize. Regardless of my feelings toward unbelievers, if I accept the idea that one must believe in Christ to be saved, I must reject the idea that one can be saved by a different means. The same will be true whether or not I am arrogant about it. My point is that it is intolerance of ideas, not of people themselves, that is "at the heart" of every belief--agnosticism and atheism included.

Granted, arrogant intolerance for people of other beliefs is rampant, and everyone--yes, everyone--has been guilty of it at some point. But I submit that this is not necessarily a flaw inherent in a given belief system, but rather that it is a flaw inherent in human nature. Humans are notorious for going to extremes in anything. Take eating, for example. Is there something inherent in eating that causes people to overeat and get fat? No, but the desire for more and more food causes many people to indulge and later suffer the consequences. In the same way, people can become overzealous and do terrible things in the name of their religions, even if their religion does not command them to do so.

Everyone who breathes must at some point exercise faith, accepting one idea over another. No one can prove that Adam and Eve existed, that Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad, or that God does not exist. Regardless of how much evidence can be given in favor of or against these things, it still takes faith to accept them because we can not make direct observation on them. As for whether there is good reason to believe in such things as sacred texts, I would love to get into a discussion in another thread.

 

[Contrarian]

Shake - Thank you for the very learned, philosophical response. It is quite scholarly. I took some exerpts and will respond to them in order below:

To say this is always accompanied by arrogance is to over-generalize. Regardless of my feelings toward unbelievers, if I accept the idea that one must believe in Christ to be saved, I must reject the idea that one can be saved by a different means. The same will be true whether or not I am arrogant about it. My point is that it is intolerance of ideas, not of people themselves, that is "at the heart" of every belief--agnosticism and atheism included.

Humans are notorious for going to extremes in anything. Take eating, for example. Is there something inherent in eating that causes people to overeat and get fat? No, but the desire for more and more food causes many people to indulge and later suffer the consequences. In the same way, people can become overzealous and do terrible things in the name of their religions, even if their religion does not command them to do so.

As for whether there is good reason to believe in such things as sacred texts, I would love to get into a discussion in another thread.

The term arrogance refers to the hyper reactivity of those on both (or any) side of this issue. When someone believes they are absolutely right, and all others are wrong, it is fundamentally arrogant. Intolerance of ideas, while seemingly benign at face value, escalates and evolves into intolerance for the individual. I cite my earlier comment concerning the absolute inability of an atheist to get elected to office in this country. This is reflected in the Democrats post mortem of the election, and citing their spiritual platform as the primary failure with the electorate. The difference in the popular vote between 2000 and 2004 could very well (the Dems think so) be a result of Bush playing to the choir, and Kerry and Co. not pandering to the faith based. It wasn't that the Dem campaign was deficient nor the party had no message / platform.. it became a question (among others) that Kerry didn't have enough faith. Call it whatever you want, but that is intolerant. Can you imagine how far Bush would have gotten, even if politically he performed identically as he does now, if he declared he was an Atheist? We all know the answer to that question.

With respect to excesses, I also agree with your theory that human nature leans to excess, and beliefs / faith (or lack of) are susceptible to that fault. I do not agree however that those who do terrible things in the name of faith, are doing so against the words of their respective books. Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world. No doubt an obscure truth of economics is at work here. To survive/prosper you need to trade / do business with those of other faiths. In America, religious moderation is further enforced by the fact that most Christians and Jews do not read the Bible in its entirety and consequently have no idea just how vigorously the God of Abraham wants heresy expunged. In Deuteronomy 13:7-11> "If your brother (etc etc) tries to seduce you by saying “Let us go and serve another god”…you must not listen to him: you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must KILL HIM, your hands must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following him. You must STONE HIM TO DEATH, since he has tried to divert you from your God." The "overzealous" you speak of, are merely faithful followers of the literal word of God as printed in the Bible. This is even a greater truth with the followers of Islam, with the Koran stating hundreds of times that non-believers / infidels must be killed.

Lastly, I look forward to discussing the credibility of the texts with you. Thank you again for the intelligent discourse.

 

[freedom69714]

Hey you BIBLE stumper you are all much better informed in regards to the BIBLE than I !

I was raised a Catholic however I consider myself to be an Atreus (NON religious ) today

However if you believe in just ONE man and one woman than how did we get
the chinese , Japinese , blacks etc
how are clealy differant that the WHITE people

my time is almost up at


LATER

FREEDOM69

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Contrarian: "I agree that intolerance is indeed "at the heart of every sect," to the extent that when it comes down to choosing between contradictory ideas, one idea is accepted and the others rejected. By definition, then, those who believe the contradictory ideas must be considered wrong. But all this can be said of any belief system, not merely those commonly labeled religious. True atheists, for example, in order to accept the idea that God does not exist, must reject the idea that those who believe in God are correct. Stating the obvious? Yes, but it is nothing more than this same black-and-white distinction that causes members of a religion such as Christianity to believe that unbelievers will be eternally punished. To say this is always accompanied by arrogance is to over-generalize. Regardless of my feelings toward unbelievers, if I accept the idea that one must believe in Christ to be saved, I must reject the idea that one can be saved by a different means. The same will be true whether or not I am arrogant about it. My point is that it is intolerance of ideas, not of people themselves, that is "at the heart" of every belief--agnosticism and atheism included."

It's perfectly all right to be wrong, sometimes; at other times it really can't be tolerated. Religion is one of those cases where it's okay. Piloting an airliner is when it is not okay. Believing that Jesus is going to haul the chosen off to celestial mansions doesn't hurt a thing; believing that your plane will take off all right with ice on the wing, does. The problem is that religions don't accept this. As far as they are concerned it is not permissible to be wrong, i. e. believe something other than all the finer points of the true doctrine. If persuasion doesn't work, coercion might. If not coercion, execution will at least turn the matter over to the deity in question.

As you say, " True atheists, for example, in order to accept the idea that God does not exist, must reject the idea that those who believe in God are correct." This, as just mentioned, does not mean they have to be either intolerant or arrogant about it. It is up to the believers to prove what is, rather than the unbeliever to prove what isn't. When the proof approaches coercion, however, the atheist should be forgiven his resentment.

 

[Contrarian]

Hey you BIBLE stumper you are all much better informed in regards to the BIBLE than I !

I was raised a Catholic however I consider myself to be an Atreus (NON religious ) today

However if you believe in just ONE man and one woman than how did we get
the chinese , Japinese , blacks etc
how are clealy differant that the WHITE people

Freedom, the one thing that I have found to be most remarkable, is that most people of faith (not some of the good folks on this thread however!) haven't REALLY read the Bible, nor do they understand it. The same goes for the Koran by the way. It is also amusing that groups get together to discuss the "symbolism" or true meaning of certain passages while they completely ignore the literal "word of God" which they claim the Bible to be.

Most of us were raised something, Freedom, but I hope that you haven't become an Atheist today simply because it is a counter culture thing to do, or you hate the Catholic church. If you are going to have a belief (Catholic, Protestant, Muslim etc or Atheist) you should use deductive reasoning and ask yourself WHY you believe what you believe. It's like people saying they hate Bush or Kerry without having a objective reason for saying so. My suggestion Freedom is READ... you'll learn alot.

There is only one human race... it happens to come wrapped in different colored wrappers which are a result of environmental evolution. Simplistically,Africans are dark because of the sunny hot environment they evolved in. Scandanavians are very fair because they evolved in a darker, colder environment. Culturally they evolved as well. BEcause of where they evolved, diets were (are) different, languages, social order, moral norms and religious beliefs. In recognizing and respecting (truly respecting... not tolerating them!) this great nation was formed by some very smart people. Who hundreds of years ago realized, if you allow the belief system of one group to dominate, the freedoms of all are in jeopardy. READ, Freedom, READ.

 

[shake3]

I too thank you for your insightful response, Contrarian.

The term arrogance refers to the hyper reactivity of those on both (or any) side of this issue. When someone believes they are absolutely right, and all others are wrong, it is fundamentally arrogant[...]

Who says it is fundamentally arrogant? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is. Then everyone who has any belief whatsoever is fundamentally arrogant, because to believe what they do (e.g. an atheist's belief that God does not exist) they must believe that those who say otherwise are wrong. If everyone who believes is hyper-reactive, then to return to a state of "normal reactivity" they must discard their belief, because to believe is to be hyper-reactive (arrogant). This means that belief, whether in the existence of God or in the non-existence of God or in any number of ideas, is an undesirable thing. "Respect" for people's beliefs would not be ethical, because it would be equivalent to respecting arrogance. Do you see the problems that arise from the idea that arrogance is inherent in belief?

In light of this, as well as for reasons discussed in my earlier post, I say that it is human nature, not belief, that causes people to be arrogant. Does having full tenure at a university automatically make a professor arrogant, or is it their human nature that causes them to gain an attitude of superiority? True, being in such a high position can facilitate excessive head-growth. Yet many professors I know take a humble approach to their job, even though they might struggle not to let it go to their head. The very fact that they struggle indicates that arrogance is not something inherent in their position.

I cite my earlier comment concerning the absolute inability of an atheist to get elected to office in this country. This is reflected in the Democrats post mortem of the election, and citing their spiritual platform as the primary failure with the electorate[...]

I need to make an important distinction here--tolerance for people as individuals is a completely different issue from tolerance for people's serving a function. While it would be wrong to be intolerant of a heroin addict as a person, it certainly wouldn't make sense to hire him/her as a brain surgeon. Unfair example, I know, since an Atheist is just as capable of running a nation as anyone else is. But when people decide on a leader based on values and/or capability, it is not a case of intolerance for the person as a person, but for the person as a leader. When people strongly advocate a position, they obviously tend not to elect someone who will act contrary to that position. It is a matter of function, not personhood. Many people unfortunately do make it personal, but again I argue that this goes back to human nature and its tendencies toward excess.

I do not agree however that those who do terrible things in the name of faith, are doing so against the words of their respective books. Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world. No doubt an obscure truth of economics is at work here[...]

You raise an important point in the harsh commands that certain religions give. I totally agree that moderates in many religions do make loose interpretations of their scriptures in order to avoid societal problems. Still, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is the case with Christians' interpretation of OT Law. An interpretation that appears loose when looking at a passage in isolation can show to be quite strict when looking at the passage in context. Most of my fellow Christians are aware of the harsh regulations in OT Law, but they also are aware of the big picture, that the Law finds its fulfillment in Christ, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Read the whole story, and you'll find that the Law has served its purpose but no longer holds power over believers. Gal. 3:24-25 summarizes it well: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
The intentions of "overzealous" Christians might be to faithfully follow God's Word, but the actual result is quite different when they take scriptures out of context. As Alexander Pope said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing."

 

[Contrarian]

I too thank you for your insightful response, Contrarian.
"

I too, would like to thank you for your positive tone and intelligent response:

You stated: "everyone who has any belief whatsoever is fundamentally arrogant, because to believe what they do (e.g. an atheist's belief that God does not exist) they must believe that those who say otherwise are wrong."

[B]ar·ro·gant[/B] adj.
1) Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2) Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.

The mere act of believing the other is wrong, is not where the point of arrogance arises. It lies in the sense of "overbearing self-worth and assumption of superiority". This is evidenced every day in comments like: "He is a good God fearing, church going man...." with the implication being, if you are not religious, you are bad, therefore inferior. The resulting effect is the church goers is deemed "superior". This is not only arrogant but misguided.

You stated: "Respect" for people's beliefs would not be ethical, because it would be equivalent to respecting arrogance. Do you see the problems that arise from the idea that arrogance is inherent in belief?

The pseudo respect exhibited in the case of religion is a result of civil standards which evolved over time. Ethics are established as a result of societal influence as a standard for civilized people. The arrogance that I speak of has resulted from this rejection of the beliefs of others. It exists today throughout this great country. The CHristian would say...If you do not believe in Jesus Christ, you will not be saved... you will suffer eternal hellfire and damnation". Now, I think that is pretty clear... if you are good enough (superior), you get the good stuff.... if you don't listen to what I say you are evil (inferior) and you get to suffer for eternity. It doesn't seem to be too ambiguous to me. On the other hand, an Athiest can only say, if you don't believe what I believe, the worse that can happen is you win and you go to heaven. The anger and animosity expressed by the hyper-reactive Atheist is because of a constant sense of being deemed inferior, immoral and "evil". I don't blame them for being ****ed off.

You stated: "I need to make an important distinction here--tolerance for people as individuals is a completely different issue from tolerance for people's serving a function. While it would be wrong to be intolerant of a heroin addict as a person, it certainly wouldn't make sense to hire him/her as a brain surgeon. Unfair example, I know, since an Atheist is just as capable of running a nation as anyone else is. But when people decide on a leader based on values and/or capability, it is not a case of intolerance for the person as a person, but for the person as a leader."

I hope you aren't compairing an Atheist to a person suffering a disease / addiction? I might counter that neurophysiology studies ( I will be happy to pull the reference) have indicated that spiritual belief is merely an addiction... but back on track...as you aptly state, an Atheist is capable of running the country, and perhaps even founding this great country (Adams, Jefferson and Lincoln). Your logic of judging the person as a leader escapes me, because in your scenario they are being judged on "values", which I assume is belief in a diety, which again implies the person is inferior regardless of their true capabilities. Do you realize that Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson couldn't get elected today based upon their records, if the only different disclosure in their campaign was they were Athiests. Now this is twisted and I'm sorry to say, downright "arrogant".

You stated: "When people strongly advocate a position, they obviously tend not to elect someone who will act contrary to that position. It is a matter of function, not personhood."

When a candidate is being judged by what church (or not) they attend, instead of their practical ability as a leader, it is the religious equivalent to racism.

You stated: "I totally agree that moderates in many religions do make loose interpretations of their scriptures in order to avoid societal problems. Still, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is the case with Christians' interpretation of OT Law."

Well that's really not to hard... for those that believe the Bible is the literal word of God, why aren't Christians stoning heretics in the street for working on the sabbath? Why are they not killing those with cloths made of two threads? Should we murder those who blaspheme the Lord by touching the skin of a dead pig? My goodness, what would the NFL do?

You said: An interpretation that appears loose when looking at a passage in isolation can show to be quite strict when looking at the passage in context. Most of my fellow Christians are aware of the harsh regulations in OT Law, but they also are aware of the big picture, that the Law finds its fulfillment in Christ, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

What confuses me is, if you believe that the Bible is true and literal word of God, who gave you the right to "interpret" it, and if it is OK to interpret it, doesn't it satnd to reason that it has been "interpreted" (aka edited, slanted it, corrupted it, added to) over it's thousands of years as a document? If it is the true literal word of God, why are these believers choosing to ignore it's specific direction? Because it is more convenient? More economically profitable to mingle with the other sects? I think the big picture is that man bends religious dogma to fit the current market requirements.

You said: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

"Justified by faith" sounds pretty arrogant to me...does that mean those who did not come to Christ are "unjustified"? I think so.

Lastly, you quoted: As Alexander Pope said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing

Gee, I thought that was St Thomas Equinus said that when he cracked down on scholars and philosphers as Heretics... by the way, the word "Heretic" derives from the Greek word for "Choice".

 

[shake3]

Funny how our posts keep getting longer and longer...we could almost publish a book with how much we've written back and forth already

The mere act of believing the other is wrong, is not where the point of arrogance arises.

That's interesting that you say that, because in your earlier post you claimed, "When someone believes they are absolutely right, and all others are wrong, it is fundamentally arrogant." Make up your mind!
Judging from your latest post, it appears we both agree that arrogance is separate from the belief that one is right and others are wrong. What I don't understand is where you think arrogance comes from. You say that arrogance arises from the "sense of overbearing self-worth and assumption of superiority." But wait, Merriam-Webster states that arrogance is that "impression of superiority." So arrogance arises from itself?

This is evidenced every day in comments like: "He is a good God fearing, church going man...." with the implication being, if you are not religious, you are bad, therefore inferior. The resulting effect is the church goers is deemed "superior". This is not only arrogant but misguided.

It certainly is arrogant and misguided. It's unfortunate that so many Christians try to distinguish between "good people" and "bad people," because the Bible makes it clear that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Christians can oftentimes lose sight of the fact that they are saved not because of any merit of their own, but because of God's grace (Eph. 2:8-9); and as a result, they tend to see themselves as somehow superior to those who have not yet experienced God's grace. What can I say? Our human nature sometimes gets the best of us.

The anger and animosity expressed by the hyper-reactive Atheist is because of a constant sense of being deemed inferior, immoral and "evil". I don't blame them for being ****ed off.

Looking only at our country, where Atheists are in the minority, you may have a point. But let's not forget the multitude of nations throughout the world. Not often talked about is the persecuted church in China, where the atheistic government treats many Christians as less than second-class citizens, even going so far as to imprison or execute them. Yet the persecuted church does not get "hyper-reactive" about it but instead peacefully accepts the harsh treatment.

I hope you aren't compairing an Atheist to a person suffering a disease / addiction?[...]Your logic of judging the person as a leader escapes me, because in your scenario they are being judged on "values", which I assume is belief in a diety, which again implies the person is inferior regardless of their true capabilities. Do you realize that Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson couldn't get elected today based upon their records, if the only different disclosure in their campaign was they were Athiests. Now this is twisted and I'm sorry to say, downright "arrogant".

I was making no such comparison. I gave the example about the heroin addict simply to illustrate the difference between intolerance for a person's serving a function instead of for the person him/herself. I had hoped the disclaimer I gave afterwards made that clear.
Judging a potential leader on values has to do with far more than just that person's belief in a deity. If belief in God's existence/non-existence had no effect on an individual's other ideas and actions, then there might be more of a reason to be upset. But the reality is that this belief has a profound impact on how a person views the world around them, thus impacting how they act in response to any number of events. If people want a leader to act a certain way, they want that leader to have a framework of mind that will encourage him/her to do so. We could go on and on about Jefferson, Lincoln, Adams, etc., and this post is long already.

What confuses me is, if you believe that the Bible is true and literal word of God, who gave you the right to "interpret" it, and if it is OK to interpret it, doesn't it satnd to reason that it has been "interpreted" (aka edited, slanted it, corrupted it, added to) over it's thousands of years as a document? If it is the true literal word of God, why are these believers choosing to ignore it's specific direction?

If God's word makes statement A, but in a different place says something descriptive about A, should we not take into account the description of A, and not merely A itself? Would we not be ignoring God's "specific direction," as you say, if we disregarded the description? In the same way, it would be selective thinking to consider the commands of Torah without considering them in light of the Bible's own teaching about the place Torah has in a Christian's life.

Gee, I thought that was St Thomas Equinus said that when he cracked down on scholars and philosphers as Heretics... by the way, the word "Heretic" derives from the Greek word for "Choice".

A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
--Alexander Pope, from "An Essay on Criticism"

Who knows, maybe Pope was up till 3 AM trying to find a word that rhymed with "spring" and in desperation whipped out his old Aquinas collection...

 

[Contrarian]

Our book would be a very interesting civil dialogue, which would probabily bore the hell out of most who read it, but I find it rewarding and thought provoking

I'll try to keep it short, as it is the sabbath, and some of us have work to do!

Perhaps I didn't express the complex evolution properly. My mind is made up, however I didn't quite get the point across. Belief (in this case religious) begets a sense of righteousness which develops into a comparative analysis of other who believe differently. This evolves into a sense of superiority, which then turns into arrogance, which in turn seeds the field for all kinds of prejudices. Rather than go through that flow chart, I cut to the chase. Hence, "When someone believes they are absolutely right, and all others are wrong, it is fundamentally arrogant."

From your post..You said, I said.. "that arrogance arises from the "sense of overbearing self-worth and assumption of superiority." But wait, Merriam-Webster states that arrogance is that "impression of superiority." So arrogance arises from itself?"

It shows that two different books can give different definitions, yet be taking about the same concept... my statement stands. Arrogance has its genesis in "belief".

You quoted: "Christians can oftentimes lose sight of the fact that they are saved not because of any merit of their own, but because of God's grace (Eph. 2:8-9);"

My point is reinforced. Surrender yourself to the grace of God and you will be saved. This eliminates the concept of free will.... choice.... hence heresy. Failure to surrender yourself oft times got the person tied to a stake and introduced to hell fire prematurely. It became a great way of mental conditioning which has survived to this day.

Oppression and murder of anyone for their belief is an abomination. Be it China, the middle east, Northern Ireland or anywhere. That is one of the founding pillars of our great nation.The good news is that this freedom is returning to many of these places and people of faith are slowy coming out of hiding and doing as they wish. This is not a result of any religious epiphany, but merely maturation of reason, moral values as human beings and ethics. To say the church peacefully accepts the harsh treatment implies that Atheists don't. They are on the same ground here. In the US, Atheists are looked upon by most people of faith, with the same contempt as they possess for gays. I haven't seen any armed insurrection of Godless terrorists (except those pesky Muslims!) attacking churchs. Not even on the O'Reilly factor! This prejudice is a direct contradiction of their the tenents of their faith.

I don't want to get into the whole Bible interpretation thing with you because we could spend the day debating the "true" meanings within along with mystical interpretations and prophesies of Nostrodamus, Numerology of the Dead Sea Scrolls and my personal favorite, how one scholar discovered the prophetic treatise of a fish recipe. One of the great things about interpretation, is that words can be manipulated to sell the desired thesis. Perhaps another time?

With the Pope quote, I wasn't questioning it's validity... it was a bit of my sacrastic wit... my apology! My reference was to a fresco in Rome: "St. Thomas Equinus as he confounds the heretics" by Filippo Lippi, which depicts Equinus with a scowling old man (the heretic) beneath his feet. In Equinus' hand is a scripture from the Apostle Paul which says "Sapientium, Sapientum, Perdam" - translation: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" in the hands of the defeated heretic is a banner in Latin proclaiming "Wisdom conquers evil". Hence my comment about good ol' St. T.

 

[shake3]

In light of the fact that I have midterms this week, I think it's best that we bring our "book" to a close...unless of course someone wants to pick up the thread and keep it alive (riiiiiiiiiiight )
But before we lower the curtain, I'd like to attempt to give a brief "state of the debate." How's this:
You say that religious belief gives birth to arrogance and its various manifestations; I say that human nature gives birth to arrogance and its manifestations, regardless of belief.
You say that interpretation of scriptures is a manipulation of the meaning and causes us to misapply them to our lives; I say that it is necessary both for finding the meaning and applying scripture to our lives.

Some things we just can't agree on...
Still, it's been good having this discussion with you, Contrarian.

 

[Contrarian]

Best of luck on the mid-terms. With what you have exhibited here, I'm am sure you will "ace" them all.

I enjoyed the discussion and look forward to your return.