Iconoclastic Atheist Turns To Belief In God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That depends. In the mind of a true atheist, I can only assume that there is no base of moral right or wrong to pull from. That would imply that there is absolute good and absolute evil. They object to this idea so how can they justify what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? In their minds, since there are no cosmic consequences for “wrong actions” or “right actions”, it makes little sense to assume that thay have strong values on anything. That is why I asked the questions above that have yet to be answered straightly.

rainjack wrote:
I agree with ProfX on this one. MM has been signing his little posts with “be your own god”. Either he’s completely full of crap and is arguing for argument’s sake, or he actually believes this and he is his own little god. Because of this, I think that the question of how his moral compass is built is a very pertinent question.

It jut so happens that MM has refused to answer this very important question. It creates quite the dilema for our favorite little elitist.

If he admits what is probably the truth - he got his morals from the same place as everyone else - Judeao-Christian principles that have been around for thousands of years - then he loses a little face. If he admits to what Prof X is arguing, then he is an amoral pig that is fronting as a law abiding citizen. Again he loses face.
[/quote]

Actually, I have already answered this question about the morality of atheists. Boscobarbell has also expounded upon what I had already posted, so I do not feel the need to repeat myself, nor quote what he has already said on the subject.

As for “Be your own god…”, you are already living up to that little catch-phrase. You go to work to feed your family rather than have faith that God will provide for you. If someone where to attack you, you would not turn the other cheek, but you would fight back (being a T-Man and all). In essence, you have taken control of your own life rather than putting it in the hands of a creator because you realize that based on the low success rate of your prayers, lack of any significant miracles, pain and suffering throughout the world, that your God is not likely to be there when you need Him.

Therefore, Be your own god means to take your life into your own hands, alter your environment to better suit your life and learn as much about the universe as you possibly can.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am truly interested now, where were you married and did you go to “any magistrate” in order to get married and avoid a preacher? I know I would if I opposed religion like you seem to.[/quote]

You actually seem sincere in your questioning so I will answer this one.

I am not married; I do not agree with the act of marriage–not for religious reasons but for the fact that one is required to get a license to be with someone they love. It just seems ridiculous to me. However, that is my own personal view and I did not want you to have any more fuel for your ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments to use against the other atheists just because that is what I personally feel, so I did not feel the need to mention it.

You assigned me the role of having a wife and children without knowing whether I had them or not. I was more than happy to go along with the hypothetical situation to see where your arguments were leading, but I never said that I was, in fact, married or had any children.

222

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

Actually, I have already answered this question about the morality of atheists. Boscobarbell has also expounded upon what I had already posted, so I do not feel the need to repeat myself, nor quote what he has already said on the subject.

As for “Be your own god…”, you are already living up to that little catch-phrase. You go to work to feed your family rather than have faith that God will provide for you. [/quote]

I do have one last question for you now that it took this long just to get to the truth. What was your goal when your first typed a response in this thread? Did you think you were about to enlighten us with a wisdom beyond the means of anyone who believes in God? You pitied us when you first logged into this thread. Do you still pity those who believe in God? If so, why?

I am not my own God. However, I am the master of my own destiny because I have the freedom of choice. That doesn’t ever take the place of God.

The difference between us is, I believe that there is an ulimate truth and destination for me in life and afterwards. You seem to believe that your life has no purpose beyond providing for self and that, at the end of this period of “self gratification”, you die. Needless to say, I don’t envy you. Men without a feeling of purpose and without an understanding of a greater power than self don’t change the world for the better. They simply exist in it. That isn’t my goal.

223

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I do have one last question for you now that it took this long just to get to the truth. What was your goal when your first typed a response in this thread? Did you think you were about to enlighten us with a wisdom beyond the means of anyone who believes in God? You pitied us when you first logged into this thread. Do you still pity those who believe in God? If so, why?[/quote]

I really did not have any type of “goal” when I posted my first response. To quote rainjack: “When I smell dogshit - I usually speak up and ask everyone around me to check their shoes.” To me, belief in a god is dogshit and when I see it on the bottom of your shoe, I either snicker at you for stepping in it, or feel sorry for you because you have shit all over your shoes. However, most theists just leave it there and let us atheists enjoy the aroma.

Rather than respond to this in my own words, I will just post a quote (mostly because I am lazy) but I enjoyed reading this particular quote and is relevant to you mentioning you have free will:

“God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his imprisonment and execution. When God says the same we call him ‘loving’ and build churches in his honor.”

  • William C. Easttom II

Life is a little more complex than saying, “If you only care about yourself, you offer nothing to anyone else.” You probably have no reason to want Macy*s to acquire more wealth, but you still give them your hard-earned money in exchange for goods (or insert whatever retail establishment you like). Many inventions were created by those who had no more reason to create them than to stroke their own egos–to prove it could be done. And do not tell me that most companies are inventing new technologies and improving existing ones to better mankind. They are doing it for profit–to satisfy the self, if you will.

I think drug companies are an excellent example of this. They make drugs which are supposedly going to ease disease and suffering, but they put them out to the public regardless of the negative side-effects which can sometimes be worse than the original affliction.

224

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, but there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. It is an argument made by someone looking for any reason to bypass God. It even goes as far as to ackowledge a source of absolute goodness and absolute evil but refuses to give that “source” of absolute good the disctinction of God. He hasn’t shown that God-based morality is flawed anywhere in that statement. [/quote]

Then I’m sorry, but there doesn’t seem to be anywhere we can go with this. You’ve once again misread the above (willfully, I believe), and refuse to acknowledge that the author was proposing a hypothesis in order to showed that God-based morality is contradictory. Disagree with the author on his points if you wish, but don’t pretend that he’s proposing an “Absolute good” WHEN THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!! Unless you’re going to change the very meaning of the word “absolute” as it applies to our entire discussion, i.e. god-based versus empirically determined.

Either way, the author completely disagrees with everything you’ve so far proposed regarding a required “foundation” for morality. Argue about, live with it, whatever…just don’t pretend it says something it doesn’t.

225

On what Boscobarbell wrote:
Actually there is a concept of once saved always saved in Christianity. So at that point we can do anything we want without fear of retribution. So I try to do right not to avoid Hell, but because I try to honor God in everything I do. Do I fail? Yeah, I fail alot. Do I let it stop me from still trying to do God’s will? No I keep on trying. My fate is not based on what I do anymore.SO your argument if God allowed us to do what we want without fear does not really apply. We can, we just choose not too.

Now if God didn’t exist. Well I might try to do alot of things different. After all if this it then there is no morality, and you are just matter. If you are just matter, then you really don’t have feelings. You have just tricked your self into thinking you have them. In fact reality is only reality until you die. So There would be no constants. Which would mean your ethics, are only yours. At this point you are probably realizing this is circular reasoning. Which means it just goes in a circle, and no one can win the argument.

The point is if there is no authority to answer to, then there are no greater truths. Which means anything and everything is right.

If there is an authority, then you have someone to answer to. You either do right, because A.) You fear the punishment. B.) Because you that is what you want to do.

Now lets say We we remove fear of punishment because someone paid your bail for the rest of your life. You would either A.) feel a sense of gratitude towards the person who paid your bail, and try and pay them back in some way. B.) Not really care.

It is more complex then what you are trying to make it. You are claiming to understand why every person of faith tries to do right. You can’t answer for each person. I would certainly not fit in your example. I Choose to do right out of gratitude, but I could never repay, (nor am I trying to) what Christ did for me.

226

Also on what Boscobarbell wrote:

You don’t understand why we have the 10 commandments, and the law of the OT. They are not to show us how to live, but to show us what it would take to get to God by works. We could not follow it, so GOd would have to provide another way.

If God created us with a sense of morals, and right and wrong (which is what Christians believe). Then you are right Christianity would not have the only rights to these things. If God created them though you could not bypass Him and go to the source. He would be the source. The Bible clearly says that God put eternity in the hearts of man. Meaning He put a greater sense of right, wrong, God, and the after life inside of us.

227

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

Is it just me, or does bamit give anyone else the creeps? So bamit believes it because it is such an improbable story. Fascinating. No doubt you believe people are being anally-probed by aliens (why would someone just make that up?). As for Jesus being nailed to the cross, that was not an uncommon thing for the Romans to do.

I am also getting tired of hearing about these “first hand accounts” of Jesus dying, being resurrected, turning water into wine, etc. You are reading a book that was written over 2,000 years ago. I could write a book right now about my “first hand account” of the Civil War and in a couple hundred years no one would be the wiser.
[/quote]

Actually you would have to forge the writing style of the 1860’s to be considered credible. So I think we would be the wiser. Most Historians have dated the gospels in the first century. Also all of the Historians of their day seem to validate the Christian movement.

Now making someone who was crucified God. Is an absolutly crazy thing to do for an ancient people. Crucification Was meant to be a show of having no power of the body. Who would claim a God for someone who is out of control of their own Body. For a Jew of that day to come up with that as a story is nuts. It is shown time and time again, that they wanted, and expected the Christ to come and destroy the Romans by force, something He did not do. His disciples in the gospel are described as being shocked He was crucified, and then destroyed because He was dead. Shortly after that they Claim to see Him alive, and then they are beaten by the same Jewish leaders that they feared on a few months before, also the same ones that took Christ life. Either four seperate guys wrote the most insane story about a movement that seemed to believe this crazy thing, Or there is something to it.

Once again though. All the Jewish people had to do was show the Body, and the whole movement would not exist.

228

[quote]Professor X wrote:

A: The difference between us is, I believe that there is an ulimate truth and destination for me in life and afterwards. You seem to believe that your life has no purpose beyond providing for self and that, at the end of this period of “self gratification”, you die. Needless to say, I don’t envy you. B: Men without a feeling of purpose and without an understanding of a greater power than self don’t change the world for the better. They simply exist in it. That isn’t my goal.[/quote]

A: No, I believe the difference between theists and atheists is this: We see this baffling, enormous, mysterious universe and humbly acknowledge that we’ll never fully understand it, may never know of its origins or its “meaning”…assuming, of course, that one even exists. So we make the most of what we have, and what we know…we love each other, enjoy each day, and do the best we can to plod on through our mortality. Theists, lacking the courage to exist amidst uncertainty and/or ignorance, make up a pretty fairy tale to get them through the dark night…a fantasy with an infallible, loving God who looks after them and promises them in the Afterlife what they lack in the here and now.
B: Your fundamental ignorance regarding “purpose” leads you to this false notion regarding how the world is changed for the better. Most change the world because they love humanity…hell, perhaps even because they love riches…and wish to leave their mark.

Do you think the polio vaccine was designed as a tribute to a higher being? No. It was designed to lessen man’s suffering. And if your god was all you had him cracked up to be, polio wouldn’t exist in the first place. What, are you going to instruct me to read Job like you did a previous poster? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I already have. My impression? Your god, if he really exists, reminds me a whole lot of the abusive parents I send to prison every week. Cheers…

p.s. Maybe our posts are crossing, but I still don’t have your answer to how you’d act if god hypothetically gave you a 24-hour free pass on the Commandments? Still thinking that one over???

229

My point with the previous post about the objective morals was that even with atheists supposedly having no moral foundation that there are things which cannot be rationalized or excused away. If any of the things I posted happened, the responsible party would probably be considered evil (if you believe in evil) or would at least be abhored and shunned by Christians and non-Christians alike.

230

[quote]haney wrote:

If God created us with a sense of morals, and right and wrong (which is what Christians believe). Then you are right Christianity would not have the only rights to these things. If God created them though you could not bypass Him and go to the source. He would be the source. The Bible clearly says that God put eternity in the hearts of man. Meaning He put a greater sense of right, wrong, God, and the after life inside of us.[/quote]

Right…and this “greater sense of right, wrong” just happens to neatly coincide with the majority of what civilizations were following for thousands of years BEFORE Christ every ended up in that manger? Or do you think that only Christians believe that it’s wrong to kill your neighbor, covet his wife, or steal his goods?

Let me put this to you another way. You’re at your friends house when he’s suddenly called away on an emergency. Do you not steal his stereo and silverware because you wish to “get to God through his works,” or do you choose not to because you love your friend and would mean him no harm?

What I draw away from most of this is how fundamentally hateful Christians are of mankind in general. They are convinced that, without their Bible or their Commandments, mankind is simply a collection of cheats, murderers, and thieves. Rabid dogs who need to be held in check with the fear of God’s wrath.

Me and the other atheists I know think a little differently. Are there bad people? Yup, unfortunately. But plenty of good ones, too, most of whom don’t need to quote Scripture in order to know Right from Wrong.

231

[quote]haney wrote:

Either four seperate guys wrote the most insane story about a movement that seemed to believe this crazy thing, Or there is something to it.

Once again though. All the Jewish people had to do was show the Body, and the whole movement would not exist.[/quote]

Actually, it was more like four dozen guys, at the least. According to even Christian historians and textual experts, the Gospels are “multi-source” records…i.e., they were produced by a number of authors who provided consecutive edits, redacts, additions, etc.

Let me ask you, since no one else jumped in when I posted it before: name me one…just one…first-hand, first-person account by someone who witnessed ANY of the “miracles” ascribed to Jesus. Here’s a hint: there ain’t one.

232

[quote]haney wrote:
Actually there is a concept of once saved always saved in Christianity. So at that point we can do anything we want without fear of retribution. So I try to do right not to avoid Hell, but because I try to honor God in everything I do. Do I fail? Yeah, I fail alot. Do I let it stop me from still trying to do God’s will? No I keep on trying. My fate is not based on what I do anymore.SO your argument if God allowed us to do what we want without fear does not really apply. We can, we just choose not too.
[/quote]

I think you need to block out some time with your pastor, 'cause it appears that there’s a whole lot you’re missing.

“Actually there is a concept of once saved always saved in Christianity. So at that point we can do anything we want without fear of retribution.” What is that, like a cosmic “Get Out of Jail Free” Card? So once you reach that point, you can fill your basement with the bodies of little boys you’ve molested without fear of God’s Wrath?

Damn, either you’re making this shit up, or your voodoo is even stranger than I’d thought?

“So I try to do right not to avoid Hell, but because I try to honor God in everything I do.” Now you’re just parsing words. No matter how you choose to describe it, you’re acting “morally” in order to please God. Atheists act morally because they love their fellow man. You tell me which is more noble…one who does good to achieve another’s approval, or one who does good because he loves good?

233

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
haney wrote:

If God created us with a sense of morals, and right and wrong (which is what Christians believe). Then you are right Christianity would not have the only rights to these things. If God created them though you could not bypass Him and go to the source. He would be the source. The Bible clearly says that God put eternity in the hearts of man. Meaning He put a greater sense of right, wrong, God, and the after life inside of us.

Right…and this “greater sense of right, wrong” just happens to neatly coincide with the majority of what civilizations were following for thousands of years BEFORE Christ every ended up in that manger? Or do you think that only Christians believe that it’s wrong to kill your neighbor, covet his wife, or steal his goods?
[/quote]

To be quite honest Christ was not an enforcement of the Law, but a freedom from it. As I stated earlier the Law was meant to show us what it took to live up to God’s standard. Something we could not do on our own. Christ is the only way we could get there.

Well I would hope to not steal from Him even if He wasn’t my friend. As far as everyone else is concerned that really depends upon them. Some people have no problem killing, or coveting, or molesting, or anything else. I never said it was a Christian concept.

You are right about some of it. We do think all men are born evil, and selfish. There is no fear though when you are on the right side of the fence though.

Well that is fine, but what is good? Who’s standard are we using?
Have you ever told a lie? Don’t we teach kids you need to be honest, or do you teach kids it is good to lie? Well if you have ever lied then you don’t live up to the standard that you tell your own kids(if you have any). My point is you most likely don’t even fully live up to your standard of good. So what would give you the right to say you are good?

234

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
Actually, it was more like four dozen guys, at the least. According to even Christian historians and textual experts, the Gospels are “multi-source” records…i.e., they were produced by a number of authors who provided consecutive edits, redacts, additions, etc.

[/quote]

Show me where Christian historians believe that the gospels were compiled by multi-source? There is speculation of a document called the Q which might have sayings of Jesus or might not. It has yet be found, and has no basis in this discussion since there are no copies of it that exist. It is purly hypothesis.

http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html

[quote]
Let me ask you, since no one else jumped in when I posted it before: name me one…just one…first-hand, first-person account by someone who witnessed ANY of the “miracles” ascribed to Jesus. Here’s a hint: there ain’t one. [/quote]

Sorry had I seen it I most certinaly would of responded.

Actually Matthew’s gospel has the marking of being translated from the Aramaic. It is widely believed that his existed in Aramaic format first. There are also markings of Him having knowledge of money which he was a tax collector, and only someone of that profession would most likely use figures like that. Mark would of wrote his off of Peter’s sermons since Peter could not write. Luke has medical descriptions, and John has extreme details of coming from an inner circle.

I am sure you will want more information.

Here is an overview of the gospels
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

Here is individual essays on each gospel.
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html

235

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:

I think you need to block out some time with your pastor, 'cause it appears that there’s a whole lot you’re missing.
[/quote]

Well actually no I don’t need to block anytime out with my pastor. I gave you an overview of a concept that is very Biblical. I am also studying to be in the ministry. I didn’t know you wanted to debate doctrinal issues? I think you would to better to just try and disprove God then to discuss an in house debate that really only belongs to believers.

Well it could be considered a get out of free jail card. You would have to understand the concept of once you get saved though you are made new in God. That He begins to change you desires from wanting to sin to wanting to be righteous, and that if you murdered people that usually shows everyone you really were not saved. you also cannot come to God if your sole motives is to turn right around and fill your basement full of bodies without fear of going to Hell.

Well Church Doctrine should not be your concern. You would have to get past the very idea of God before you could start talking about an in house issue.

[quote]
“So I try to do right not to avoid Hell, but because I try to honor God in everything I do.” Now you’re just parsing words. No matter how you choose to describe it, you’re acting “morally” in order to please God. Atheists act morally because they love their fellow man. You tell me which is more noble…one who does good to achieve another’s approval, or one who does good because he loves good?[/quote]

Well you assume I think I can please God. I honor GOd out of pure Love for Him. I do good by other men because God loves them and I am no better than them. He loved me when I was at my worst. I can’t please GOd, anymore than I can please anyone else. I am merely choose to try to what is right out of Love for Him. Kind of like I listened to my Dad, and did what I was told when I was younger out of respect and Love for Him.

236

[quote]haney wrote:

Show me where Christian historians believe that the gospels were compiled by multi-source?
[/quote]

Why not start here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Or will you refuse to acknowledge the scholarship contained within because it doesn’t conform to your “party line?” We’ve been down this road before with regard to the christian slant on science, and I fear that, once again, we’ll reach a chasm we can’t cross.

[quote]haney wrote:
Sorry had I seen it I most certinaly would of responded.

Actually Matthew’s gospel has the marking of being translated from the Aramaic. It is widely believed that his existed in Aramaic format first. There are also markings of Him having knowledge of money which he was a tax collector, and only someone of that profession would most likely use figures like that. Mark would of wrote his off of Peter’s sermons since Peter could not write. Luke has medical descriptions, and John has extreme details of coming from an inner circle.
[/quote]

So, to synopsize, the answer is "No, there are no first-person, eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ miracles in the Bible written by the contemporary himself. Thank you.

237

[quote]haney wrote:
Well actually no I don’t need to block anytime out with my pastor. I gave you an overview of a concept that is very Biblical. I am also studying to be in the ministry. I didn’t know you wanted to debate doctrinal issues? I think you would to better to just try and disprove God then to discuss an in house debate that really only belongs to believers.[/quote]

Thanks for you concerns for my debating well-being, but I’m quite comfortable in discussing doctrinal issues. Particularly when your discussion is so rife with contradictions and double-speak.

[quote]haney wrote:

Well it could be considered a get out of free jail card. You would have to understand the concept of once you get saved though you are made new in God. That He begins to change you desires from wanting to sin to wanting to be righteous, and that if you murdered people that usually shows everyone you really were not saved. you also cannot come to God if your sole motives is to turn right around and fill your basement full of bodies without fear of going to Hell.
[/quote]

So which is it? Yes, you are given a free pass for all future sins once saved, or no, no such free pass exists.

[quote]haney wrote:
Well Church Doctrine should not be your concern. You would have to get past the very idea of God before you could start talking about an in house issue.

[/quote]

I’d prefer if you not decide for me what is my concern. Actually, I include Church Doctrine amongst my concerns because it underscores the logistic and semantic hoops believers will jump through in order to insulate themselves from the utter contradictions inherent in proposing a supernatural cause for our natural world.

[quote]haney wrote:
Well you assume I think I can please God. I honor GOd out of pure Love for Him. I do good by other men because God loves them and I am no better than them. He loved me when I was at my worst. I can’t please GOd, anymore than I can please anyone else. I am merely choose to try to what is right out of Love for Him. Kind of like I listened to my Dad, and did what I was told when I was younger out of respect and Love for Him.[/quote]

More semantic nonsense. You do good solely to somehow honor/love/respect/whateveryouwanttocallit God, and no amount of writing in circles can get you around that.

238

[quote]haney wrote:

I am sure you will want more information.

Here is an overview of the gospels
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

Here is individual essays on each gospel.
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html

[/quote]

Actually, if I did want more information it would not be from J.P. Holding and his Apologetics Ministry. A self-published, sole-source minister is your source of information on the origins of the Gospels? My, we’re desperate…

239

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
haney wrote:

Show me where Christian historians believe that the gospels were compiled by multi-source?

Why not start here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[/quote]

Well I failed to see where there were Christian Scholars. Also I would note A scholar has no business evaluating historical documents. That is best left up to Historians. Which JP Holding quotes and uses plenty of them.

I acknowledge they have a different view point. I tell you what though you show me a document that contained saying of Jesus that came before the gospels and then I will consider your scholars. After all we do have the gospels, but no master saying document as you and your scholars propose.

Actually the answer is Yes, Matthew wrote His gospel and so did John, Mark wrote what Peter said, (Peter would be an eye witness) Luke is the only one you could throw into question. On top of that if the gospels are lies the oral tradition would most certainly contradict them, and no one would accept them. Back then oral tradition was held in higher regard than written word. So If they were wrong no one would keep copying them. Also you failed to see the part where even the early Church made comments about there being a gospel of matthew which first came from the Aramaic.

I am guessing you didn’t even read the links that are contained in my previous post. I tell you what if you think JP is so wrong you are more than welcome to take it up with him at theologyweb.com

240

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
haney wrote:
Well actually no I don’t need to block anytime out with my pastor. I gave you an overview of a concept that is very Biblical. I am also studying to be in the ministry. I didn’t know you wanted to debate doctrinal issues? I think you would to better to just try and disprove God then to discuss an in house debate that really only belongs to believers.

Thanks for you concerns for my debating well-being, but I’m quite comfortable in discussing doctrinal issues. Particularly when your discussion is so rife with contradictions and double-speak.

[/quote]
If you are so knowledgable than why did you not know something that is a common belief among many protestants

Yes you given a free pass which is based upon a true conversion. Read the book of Romans. I am sure you can find it in there.

Ok. I just figured it would be easier to avoid it since you don’t understand the Church’s stance on the issue. You seem to think all Christian faith is works based. No one in the faith would make that statement.

[quote]
More semantic nonsense. You do good solely to somehow honor/love/respect/whateveryouwanttocallit God, and no amount of writing in circles can get you around that.[/quote]

Who is writing in circles? I am trying to explain a view point which you seem to not understand. If you want to throw out problems. Do you really do things because you love your fellow man, or do you do it because it makes you feel good? If you did things because you loved you fellow man than I would assume you would have started a proccess that would out give Mother Theresa.