But is their effect on us, or some of us, what makes them "holy"?
— Ciceronianus

What else? — Janus

No, it's their source that is holy, and because of their source, they are holy in and of themselves.

However, whether a particular person can recognize them as holy or not depends on this person's purity "of heart" or lack thereof.

The purpose of my objection is not to say who the burden of proof ought to be on, but instead to attempt to disprove the argument made by Flew that the burden of proof ought to be on the theist. — Jonah Wong

Which theist? The cradle theist, or the adult convert theist?
Because cognitively/epistemically, the two are categorically different.


Secondly, what if the theist doesn't consider himself thusly burdened to provide proof?

Because the meaning of words changes over time, this can lead to confusion if we don't know the etymology and cultural history. The change is not necessarily from the literal to the metaphorical and vice versa. Sometimes, the referent changes. For example, the thing that used to be called "soap" two thousand years ago in India is not what used to be considered "soap" for the past several hundred years in Europe (ie. soap in the form of hard bars), and again, the word "soap", with the relatively recent popularity of liquid soap, now has a different range of referents.
— baker

That's not why. — Hanover

I was addressing your point about those old stories not being taken literally by their writers.

Do give three examples where you think an ancient text was intended as metaphorical by the ancient writers.
— baker

The creation story (story #1 dealing with the 7 days of creation).

If they believed God is very powerful (and they apparently did), then I think it's likely it seemed entirely realistic to them that God would create the world and everything on it in seven solar days. I see no reason to think they didn't take the creation story literally.
Same with creation by God's word.

The decisive factor here is that they believed that God is very powerful.

The creation story (story #2 dealing with the Garden of Eden).

Which part do you mean? About Eve being made out of Adam's rib, or Adam and Eve being the parents of humanity?

As for the rib story, on account of their belief that God is very powerful, I, again, see no problem with taking it literally.
Also, if "rib" had a special meaning that is now lost to us, this adds another possible explanation for literal reading.

As for the second one, if Adam is taken to mean 'male ancestors of humanity' and Eve 'female ancestors of humanity', as we can gather from the context, there's no problem. The word "Adam" can be a personal name, or it can be a general noun meaning 'man' or 'human'. "Eve" cal alsobe a personal name, but the word literally means 'living being'. There are a few unspoken steps in this story (esp. the one about how incest was avoided). I can imagine they can be filled in if we would have more knowledge about origin narratives in those times (e.g. it seems most illustrative to explain the origin of a species by focusing on one couple).

The ark story (story #1 dealing with 2 of each animal coming aboard). The ark story (story #2 dealing with 7 clean animals coming aboard and 2 unclean animals coming aboard).

You need to be more specific. Are you talking about the size of the ark and how to build it; the actual number of animals; logistic problems with having so many different animals in one place; ...?

It's clearly etiological folklore.

And beavers used to be considered fish and thus suitable to be eaten on Fridays in the Catholic Church. Nowadays, we call it "etiological folklore", back then, it was science or common knowledge (and something else was considered "etiological folklore", although they probably didn't have this term for it).

Given the kind of knowledge of the world they probably had back then, it seems entirely plausible to me that the biblical stories were entirely realistic to them (!) and that they didn't take them metaphorically.

It is sometimes said that one must read sacred texts with faith, and that if a faithless person reads them, such a person will not profit from them.
— baker

I don't know what you mean by "profit from them."

Profit spiritually, in terms of being closer to God, having a better understanding for God, having a better reverence for God.

There are people with PhDs in religious scholarship who don't believe the texts are sacred. I don't think they would agree they've not profited from their efforts.

How do you think those people have profited from their efforts? In the sense of having a theme for their academic research and obtaining tenure?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quietism." — Ciceronianus

Quietism (Latin quies, quietus, passivity) in the broadest sense is the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life. In the state of "quietude" the mind is wholly inactive; it no longer thinks or wills on its own account, but remains passive while God acts within it. Quietism is thus generally speaking a sort of false or exaggerated mysticism, which under the guise of the loftiest spirituality contains erroneous notions which, if consistently followed, would prove fatal to morality. It is fostered by Pantheism and similar theories, and it involves peculiar notions concerning the Divine cooperation in human acts.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm

Also, search Garrigou-Lagrange's Three ages of the interior life for "quietism" and "acedia". He classifies quietism as spiritual sloth, most dangerous to a person's spiritual progress.

These are the questions that in the end make us an authentically educated person: — spirit-salamander

1. What's the use of being an authentically educated person?

And just for kicks:

2. What exactly is an authentically educated person?

3. How do we know that it is so?

Oh, Polly, ἀγαθὸς καὶ σοφός, as usual.

You know, this could have been the beginning of a beautiful friendship. But you just don't want to be friends. :wave:

The problem is that the more one disregards them, or interprets them, or treat them as metaphorical, the less "holy" they seem to be.
— Ciceronianus

But what you say hasn't been borne out. What has happened is the opposite, which is that the more they've been interpreted, the more they've been venerated. Jewish interpretation of the Torah has been imaginative for thousands of years and it continues to define a culture. — Hanover

What Ciceronianus said has been borne out -- for those who don't already believe.

It is sometimes said that one must read sacred texts with faith, and that if a faithless person reads them, such a person will not profit from them.

This is my experience as well. If I read and try to understand a sacred text that I don't already believe in, the text becomes more and more trivial to me. I have seen that when people who already believe read their sacred texts, their faith increases, their sense of the sacredness of the text increases.

The written word back then and all the stories they told were doubtfully for the same reasons we use them today, which is to accurately document and archive information for the public record. These folks were trying to figure out how their world worked and they came up with all sorts of fantistical tales, none of which they really took literally. If they meant for them to be taken literally, they wouldn't have had multiple different stories describing the same events. — Hanover

Do give three examples where you think an ancient text was intended as metaphorical by the ancient writers.

We can then work through which explanation is more likely in each case.

how could the authors of the ancient texts have taken the text literally — Hanover

Because the meaning of words changes over time, this can lead to confusion if we don't know the etymology and cultural history. The change is not necessarily from the literal to the metaphorical and vice versa. Sometimes, the referent changes. For example, the thing that used to be called "soap" two thousand years ago in India is not what used to be considered "soap" for the past several hundred years in Europe (ie. soap in the form of hard bars), and again, the word "soap", with the relatively recent popularity of liquid soap, now has a different range of referents.

If you read an old Indian text and it says something like "permeat your thoughts with goodwill as you permeat soap with water", what do you imagine by that? Back then, they had bath powder, which, prior to use, had to be mixed with water and thoroughly kneaded, like dough, to get a dough-like substance with which then people washed themselves.
"I slipped on soap" would not be a coherent sentence to a person back then, nor is it for modern people who use only liquid soap.

Then, of course, translation issues. Things can get lost and added in translation. For example, in my native language, the word for "moth" is the same as one of the words for "witch". In my native language, just from a sentence that means "At night, we sat at the fire, and sometimes, [witches] would visit us", it's not clear whether the word refers to witches or moths. Context is needed.


If the reader doesn't have a broad knowledge of etymology and cultural history, they miss out on such things and instead look for alternative explanations (such as the literal-metaphorical distinction) which only lead them astray.

It seems that most looked to philosophy for ethics. Epicureanism and Stoicism were quite popular among the elite during the Empire. — Ciceronianus

What about the ordinary folks?

The pick-and-choose approach to religion may cause issues for traditionalists, but why shouldn’t religion be approached in this way? — tryhard

Normally, religions work by the principle "Do x to get y." Ie. religions make promises, they make predictions as to what you will get if you put in the required effort.

For someone who picks and chooses in terms of religion, all this goes out the window, or at the very minimum, they have no guarantees that those who follow the traditional recipe have.

To determine the most effective vehicle for religious fulfillment, one should be proactive in exploring different perspectives from around the world and from various periods of human history.

"Effective" in what sense?

Effective in the sense that a particular idiosyncratic ecclectic mixture provides the greatest ego boost for some person?

How else are we to know which approach is most relevant to our own experiences of the world?

Religion/spirituality might actually have no bearing on what is most relevant to a particular person's experiences of the world. People differ from one another.

My primary worry with the pick-and-choose method of compatibility is that it seems to suggest that religious truth is simply what seems most agreeable to the individual.

Not only that; the ecclectic approach suggests that the purpose of religion is indulging one's ego. And what is more, indulging one's ego as it currently is, when it's still unenlightened.

Ultimately, the pursuit of religious truth is up to the individual. In this sense, picking-and-choosing pieces of information that seem most justified and crafting our own relationship to religious ideas is the only sensible approach to any pursuit of knowledge. We must consider different views, evaluate the evidence, and emerge with a redefined perspective of the world. With this, I see little danger given that the individual’s pursuit is truly based in reasoning rather than convenience.

Sure, it seems inevitable that we do this. But what justification do we have to call this "religion" (or "spirituality")?

I hope you're very handsome, because all this playing dumb doesn't make you look good.

No, you misread the source and direction of my view.
Basically, I think people should focus on work. Not on "developing identity" and pursuing luxuries.

I don't know how we come to terms with our Christian past, or if we can. Perhaps it's something like Original Sin is said to be, and is an unending proclivity of some kind. — Ciceronianus

Just to be clear: The underlying theme of this topic is about how to come to terms with one's Christian past, right?

"Unbiased" discourse? What is that??
— baker

Science, mathematics, logic, phenomenology. Any discourse which depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority. Any discourse, that is, that is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts.

Any religion, including Buddhism, cannot be an unbiased discourse, because it depends on faith. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, by the way, but in order to respect intellectual honesty it should at least be acknowledged. Talk of "direct knowing" is a nonsense, inter-subjectively speaking, and can never constitute an unbiased discourse. — Janus

We've been over this at least once.

Just because a person has internalized a discourse to the point that it seems self-evident, objective, neutral, unbiased, doesn't make it so.

If you were raised in a strictly religious setting, you'd believe that the discourse you learned there depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority, and that it is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts. (It's, for example, how a person's understanding of God is sometimes conceptualized in religion -- as a matter of (infinite) progressive revision and refinement.)

The internalization of the scientific discourse depends on faith. Learning science in school is the same kind of going through the motions as religious education.

Talk of "direct knowing" is a nonsense, inter-subjectively speaking, and can never constitute an unbiased discourse.

Again, it depends on who those others subjects in the "inter-subjectively speaking" are. Who and what are they? Does just any random person, regardless of age, education, socioeconomic status, etc. qualify as your potential fellow subject?

I think your failure to understand psychological gender in terms of a perceptual-affective style that we are born with comes from a larger inability to understand cognition in embodied terms , as attuned by an affective , valuative background , a pre-given global possibility space which contributes the particular relevance that experience has for us. You seem to think of behavior in atomistic, reductionist behavioral terms. This reminds me of Skinner’s attempts to explain language learning via stimulus response theory. What you’re missing is a ‘transformational grammar’ of personality. Your way of understanding behavior reduces it to disconnected conditionings and prevents you from achieving a truly intimate empathy with others. People arent stimulus response machines or Cartesian rationalizers. They are embodied sense forming pattern seekers, and gender is one factor in how we stylistically organize those patterns. — Joshs

*sigh*

The only thing I "fail" to internalize is a particular popular notion of gender/sex. I don't give it the kind of prominence and importance as many people do.

You make a very good rightwinger. It's quite enviable. No doubt evolutionarily advantageous.

Of course, the “bad guy” is always me. How predictable. — Apollodorus

How predictable. You cast the first stone, then cry foul.

But I’ve never claimed to be “spiritual”, have I? Besides, why would you want me to be spiritual, when by your own admission, you hate even the word?

Oh, my hating even the word doesn't impede my acknowledgement that religion/spirituality is evolutionarily advantageous.

Every little thing comes down to money. Companies scramble to present a PC image so as to avoid losing their share of the market. That's why I, a healthcare worker, have been trained to be sensitive to trans issues. — frank

Sure. But why should this political correctness extend to discussions at philosophy forums?

I understand that it is hard to embrace life without purpose and meaning. But whenever a meaning or purpose is created, dialectically there has to be some reasonable counteraction with the meaning and we fall into the endless cycle of creating and destroying meanings that don't even necessarily exist in the first place. Does that not lead to simply, pessimism? — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Pessimism is a very broad term, hence it's useful to specify it further.

An individualist pessimist will simply be written off as "depressed" by others; he sees his lack of hope as a failing on his part, and not something inherent to the "human condition".

In contrast, a communal pessimist is not alone in his pessimism, he sees it as systemic and as inherent to the "human condition", with other people being "his fellow sufferers", "his fellow pessimists".

The issue at hand might well be the inability of some folk to deal with the complexities of the real world. — Banno

Most people have some difficulty to face in life. A makeover of one's appearance (whether it's in the form of hiring a stylist to choose one a new wardrobe, having a facelift, or a sex change operation) doesn't solve anything in the long run.

The problems that can be solved by changing one's external appearance (whether it's dying one's hair or changing external sexual characteristics) are not problems worth solving.

It's just subversion of rationality by the obstruction of one of the most basic concept of life

Of course it's not possible, it's about "accepting" it — InvoluntaryDecorum

Transsexuals only want _some_ of the physical traits of the sex they are transitioning into.

A man chemically and surgically "transitioning" "into" a woman wants only some female traits, but not all. He doesn't want to have a body that will eventually go through menopause, lose hair and get brittle bones. He also doesn't want to have a body that has the ability to become pregnant even when the owner of said body doesn't want it to. Hell, he surely doesn't want to have a body that readily accumulates fat and leaks blood every few weeks. No, he just wants some of the socially and economically accentuated perks of "femininity", but not others.

Hence transsexualism is suspicious.

So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms. In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body. — Joshs

The notion that someone was born in the wrong body is fairly common. One has the "wrong" hair color, the "wrong" height, the "wrong" eye color, the "wrong" mass and distribution of fat or muscle, and so on. The idea that one is "a male born in a female body" or a "female born in a male body" is on this spectrum of rejecting one's current body and wanting another body.

It's simply indicative of our society's obsession with appearance, with the superficial. Giving in to this obsession is not virtuous.

Let’s take as an example traits within modern Western societies, such as a boy growing up with a constellation of behaviors he has no control over and which causes other boys to label him a sissy. Let’s say he would list these behaviors as including speaking with a lisp, walking and throwing a ball like a girl, playing with dolls instead of toy soldiers and guns. Let’s say he also is attracted exclusively to other males and connects this attraction. with the other behaviors which he regards as feminine. Let’s say further that he does a bit of neurophysiological research and suspects that the constellation of ‘feminine’ behaviors that he was apparently born with are not random or independent of each other but instead are all the result of a kind of brain ‘wiring’ that determines psychological gender (masculine vs feminine behavior and sexual attraction). — Joshs

I wouldn't say any of that.

Children accusing another child of being a sissy is not limited to boys. Girls, too, will call another girl a sissy, if they deem her weak or incompetent.
Effective parents and teachers assume that a child should have control over his or her behaviors, that's the whole point of raising a child.

It's convenient to conceive of a person's identity as somehow a given, a neurological, physiological given. Because this way, we feel justified to like or dislike the person; we feel that our persistent liking or disliking of someone is justified.
Conceiving of a person's identity as somehow a given feeds our general craving for externalization and our reticence to take responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, desires. By taking such responsibility I mean seeing our thoughts, feelings, desires as constructed, conditioned, as subject to arising and cessation, and subject to our volition, not as givens.

We actually learn to take such responsibility early on (a child needs to do so in order to do his homework, for example), but people vary in how consistently they do this.

Given the stark differences between the religions, I’m going to need a stronger argument to be convinced of their compatibility.. Can any of you provide a stronger argument for how someone could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? — tryhard

Not at the same time. I've known a few self-styled "Christian Buddhists". It seems that the way they made them "compatible" is that they simply took from each religion what they liked, and rejected the rest. Where they felt Christianity was lacking, they added Buddhism (meditation), and where they felt Buddhism was lacking, they added Christianity (a definitive stance on who gets saved and who doesn't).

Fundamental to such ecclecticism is the conviction that by picking and choosing as one pleases, one can still patchwork together an effective program for happiness. I suppose this is very ego-affirming, and that's why people do it.

Yours is a simple demand, that folk conform to you expectations.

In the end, the only genuine response to your posts is pathos. It is tragic that you have had to adopt the attitude you have, that you cannot accept the divergence of others. — Banno

You demand that people conform to your expectations.

Even at a philosophy forum, for you, some things are simply off limits, as if this would be a watercooler conversation.

If you would to be understood, be understanding. — Banno

You're not understanding. Why should others be understanding?

The question isn’t whether there are individual
differences in personality. It is whether, a robust gender-correlated difference can be extracted , above and beyond these individual differences that you cite. Study after study shows such robust gender-related differences in many different mammals. We already know of the link between testosterone and aggression. — Joshs

The question is whether they behave a certain way because they are female or male, or whether there are alternative explanations.

Can chivalry and virtue make a comeback in today’s world or is it truly dead? — Dermot Griffin

They are about as realistic as



And fictional ideals is probably all that Stoicism and Bushido ever were anyway.

There is so much divergent thinking around what it is to be a Buddhist, it seems almost anything is possible in this space. — Tom Storm

Some say that "Buddhism" (note the ism) is a construct of Western religiology and culturology, and that it has no equivalent in what we call "traditionally Buddhist countries".

In those countries, one normally has an affiliation with a particular lineage, monastery, teacher, without necessarily having any sense of a "bigger picture" of how this particular lineage, monastery, teacher is part of something bigger, a "religion".


What is it to be a Buddhist? If anything, it's to live up to a construct of Western religiology and culturology.

"Their identity". We're at a philosophy forum. Identity is a construct.
— baker

And you would refuse to allow trans people to construct their identity, insisting that you do it for them. — Banno

Nonsense. More of your bad faith.

Identity is a construct, it's a means to an end. And we live in a world where resources are limited. This is why it is only prudent to construct one's identity in line with that.

No; I want children not to feel so disenfranchised that they try to kill themselves. I want the same for trans adults.

Ordinary people don't simply get that kind of enfranchizement, they have to earn it, by submitting to social norms.

Why should one category of people be granted that enfranchizement for free?

If you would to be understood, be understanding. You may deal with the contents of your underwear as you please. Extend that privilege to others.

You've always had the American strategy: The best defense is a good offense. You do that. You start with that. You throw the first stone. Then you cry foul.

“From the data included in this review, it appears that males tend to be more aggressive and bolder than females, whereas a lower level of intraspecific sociability in males was reported. Females seem more inclined to interspecific social interactions with humans in tasks that require cooperative skills, whereas males appear more likely to interspecific social play. Studies of spatial skills underlined a higher flexibility in resorting to a particular navigation strategy in males in an outdoor environment; however, females appear to be better at spatial learning tasks in restricted areas. Lateralization studies seem to support the view that males are preferentially left-pawed and females are preferentially right-pawed; however, some studies have failed to replicate these results. Reports on visual focusing rank females as superior in focus on specific social and physical stimuli. In olfactory monitoring activity, only male dogs are able to discriminate kin. For other stimuli, the use of olfactory recording may be related to the differential relevance that olfactory signals have for males and females.” — Joshs

Appear, seem.

I find that so much depends on the relationship one has with the animal, however short the interaction. The same animal will act very differently, depending on what human is around and how the human behaves.

For example, one of our male cats gets relatively little cuddling from us, because the rest of the family somehow believe that it is unbecoming to cuddle with a male cat, but much more appropriate to cuddle with a female cat. I surmise that it is because of this that the male is more socially withdrawn than the females, and not because of something inherently male.
I've witnessed female cats fight ferociously over territory.

Well, there's a lot I'd like to know that I think can't be recovered, so it may be just my own frustration and disappointment. I'd like to know better what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed." — Ciceronianus

I have hope that there must be a simpler way to come to terms with one's Christian past than figuring out what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed."

You attitude towards trans people is unethical, callous and shallow. — Banno

Yours has been, toward me, from the beginning.
You deserve a hundred more Scotties.

You would refuse to allow trans folk to express their identity. You are imposing your preconceptions of sexuality and gender on others, creating "society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you". So are you a hypocrite or just incapable of clear thinking? — Banno

You just want things to be politically correct and shallow. That pays your salary or something?

"Their identity". We're at a philosophy forum. Identity is a construct.

Also, since we're at a philosophy forum, there's that about getting to know the other person's position first before criticizing it, rather than jumping the gun.

Is baseball a popular sport in your country? — Joshs

No. Soccer is, but we have no "you kick like a girl".

Not a neurological problem, and not clumsiness. Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum. That is, the issue isn’t with the arm, the stance, the coordination. It is with a primordial level of perceptual processing. That is why such a wide range of behaviors ( speech pronunciation, posture, walk, throwing, general bodily comportment, response to stimuli) all are involved and tied together as gender-associated via primordial perceptual-affective style which one is born with.

To understand this is to understand why we recognize a different behavioral style in male vs female dogs and cats.

I don't buy this.

I've had cats for almost forty years, males and females, intact and sterilized, but I wouldn't ascribe the differences in behavior to their biological sex. Sure, I'm talking about a sample of altogether about twenty cats, which isn't much, but still. I would ascribe the differences primarily due to size, physical fitness, position in the hierarchy, past experiences of the animal with humans and other animals, character of their owners and upbringing style.

(I know a family that has had German shepherds for years, males and females. All their dogs were the same, regardless of age, size, and sex. All the same aggressiveness and superiority, just like their owners.)

Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum.

I know people say this, but it's not clear it is possible to actually empirically prove it. One thing I find most striking about many women nowadays, esp. the younger ones, is that they are so much like what would normally be regarded as male. Rough, stiff, voice in a lower registry, no waist, aggressive, unkind.

Many people nowadays have poor posture and poor gait. This is due to a lot of factors, notably, little exercise (so weak, short muscles and tendons, thus poorer coordination and suboptimal movement), cheap shoes (that force the person to pronate), and tight clothes. I see this in men and in women.

The point is that my natural tendency to throw the ball like a girl is related to my natural
tendency to walk in a feminine way, to speak in a way that has feminine characteristics, to have a bodily posture and comportment that tends in the same direction. — Joshs

Or, alternatively, you just feel ashamed, self-conscious. Over a long period of time, this can result in a kind of rigidity of bodily movements, with a lesser range of movement, less physical exertion, which then indeed "looks feminine".

Indeed, women are often taught to feel ashamed of themselves and to be self-conscious, but that doesn't make those traits and their physiological expression "feminine".

Yes, children, ordinary or "trans", killing themselves because of other people's bad faith.
I wonder how many people you drove into misery with your bad faith.

Far too much of antiquity is lost to us, unfortunately. — Ciceronianus

Why unfortunately? We can fight, too.

A degree of interpretive freedom is not necessarily relativism. — Wayfarer

You granted me no such freedom.

One problem is that a balanced, measured response can be too quickly labeled an attack. — Fooloso4

That's why they say that one shouldn't talk about religion and politics in polite society. Add philosophy to that.
If you want polite society, ditch talk of religion, politics, and philosophy.

I still think it's dangerous to simply say that all religions point to the same goal, but then, Jesus did say 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' which could be interpreted to support a rather pluralist idea. — Wayfarer

And he also said that many are called but few are chosen.

Correct. — Apollodorus

We all know humility is your forte.

Well, we can't let you have all the fun, can we? And as a Buddhist, you ought perhaps to be less self-centered ....

I've said several times in open forums what my stance on Buddhism is, and I told you specifically so in a PM. But you choose to ignore all that, and instead callously insist on ascribing to me stances I don't hold. Clearly, you're not interested in having an actual conversation, but are only trying to get a rise out of me by hitting me where it hurts. So typically spiritual.

Christians should put their money where their mouth is, or be made to do so.
So they say they are sooo speshal and they have the most powerful entity in the Universe on their side and they will go to heaven, happy forever, while the rest of us will suffer in hell, doomed. Okay then, if God is with them, who can be against them, right?