i cant even decide why i think you keep responding to me, we are just getting farther and farther from the original topic, i dont care what you think is the most dangerous thing in the world is, that was never a question. i understand you do not believe in any creator and or god, so i provided a somewhat scientific logic for how prayer is somewhat effective through the power of belief in possibility. you then come back with some talk about religion... religion aside go reread my posts, i would like to hear your input on the actual topic at hand here.
God's Will
- Thread starter XxtraMannish
- Start date
My post was about what happens when people pray and why they may perceive prayer as connecting with a "higher power". Not absolute truths, you and I both know what the truth is, and I explained it in my post.
Dangerous? perhaps in many cases... I've agreed with most your posts and I do believe that religion is scientifically irrational, but to attack religion as not having ANY benefit to humanity is a bit far-fetched. If you knew much about anthropology you would know religion was the catalyst needed for the birth and evolution of civilization itself.
Dangerous? perhaps in many cases... I've agreed with most your posts and I do believe that religion is scientifically irrational, but to attack religion as not having ANY benefit to humanity is a bit far-fetched. If you knew much about anthropology you would know religion was the catalyst needed for the birth and evolution of civilization itself.
For some reason you think I am required to post numerous dictionary definitions. I can post one, and if you think there is more to it that I am missing, then you can explain. Unfortunately, the three definitions you provided in your last response all dealt with the same concepts that were given in the definition I provided. According to what you've presented, deists either reject the idea that God intervenes in the universe or they reject revelation from God, or both.
How will you ever attack the definition I provide by providing definitions that explain the same thing? You criticize me for using one definition, yet you haven't provided even one definition that supports your side of the debate.
Would that be the branch where you evade actually answering my question?
The information I desire should land right in this thread since we're talking about it. This is preferable to your current rigamarole of merely positing that I don't know what is deism.
Your fuss over deism.com is meaningless to me. If you don't think that website is authoritative, fine. You still haven't explained your position and how it qualifies as deism. You still haven't provided a definition that supports your side of this debate.
Fine. And rather than simply explain what kind of deist you supposedly are, you resort to this "you just don't know" type of antic.
Thanks for telling me that there are people who call themselves "Christian Deists." Now I'd like to know how a God who appears on earth is not intervening. And if Jesus isn't God, then I'd like to know how a God who sends someone for a divine purpose is not intervening. Or will the argument be that God threw Jesus into the big bang so as to arrive at the time he did? I guess if we say that God planted the seed at the time of creation, then magically deism can include anything and everything that is normally considered contrary to it. Oh, and how can the deist "know all the true propositions of theology" if by "rational methods alone" he cannot ascertain that either God came as Jesus or sent Jesus as His only begotten son? Furthermore, how can such person, not knowing or accepting that Jesus falls into at least one of those two categories, call him or herself a Christian?
You must be dying to show me how smart you are. I apologize for forcing you into the "if you knew anything" speech. I am so inconsiderate.
You didn't need to say that even once. You could have just presented your case and let the facts speak for themselves. You're not a winning lawyer by merely saying that the defendant is guilty or saying how you need to say that the defendant is guilty. Four hours? As far as it concerns you, I just popped out of the womb and still I understand more than you. Now that that is out of the way, we can proceed past the nonsense of positing what the other does or doesn't know.
I have provided support for why I feel that screams non-deism. If you have something with which to counter, I'm still waiting.
The distinction, as far as deism is concerned, between what is considered as natural and what is considered as supernatural is the difference between an event in the universe that is determined from the creation itself and an event in the universe that is suplemental, i.e. added later, respectively. This is a necessary distinction, lest we run into problems of equivocation. If you are arguing that the "supernatural" is really natural because God is responsible for it all, then you are ignoring the distinction between the terms "natural" and "supernatural" implicit in the standard, lexical definition of deism.
If one insists on employing a consideration of "supernatural" that deems it entirely nondifferent from what is considered as "natural," then no longer are we debating a distinction that would be between what is called "deism" and what is called "theism." This is like you asking me how many pieces a fragile glass ball breaks into when dropped on a hardwood floor from a height of five feet, me closing my eyes while the experiment is being performed, and then telling you that I see only oneness. Part of the criteria required for answering your question is that I use my eyes to count the shards of glass. Similarly, part of the required criteria for defining deism is to draw a contradistinction to (non-deistic) theism by employing concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" that maintain distinctive characteristics.
I didn't say that you necessarily said this. However, as it was unclear, I decided to cover my bases, so to speak.
Concerning your light analogy, there are a sequence of events that directly cause that light to appear. There are also a sequence of events that directly cause me to be born. These sequences are caused by previous sequences, rooting back to the moment of creation. On the other hand, Jesus, be he God Himself or the only begotten son sent by God, does not appear as a product of any natural sequence. This is exemplified very nicely by the concept of the virgin birth. Not to mention that a true deist would reject virgin birth since it requires acceptance of revelation.
Please refer to this comment or refresh my memory.
You provided three definitions that all encompass what the definition I provided does. You are the one conveying that you have a problem with the definition I gave, but any arguments you have made lead me to believe that you don't really have a problem with that definition. Rather, you have a problem with how I am viewing what constitutes a supernatural occurence or an intervention on God's part. Your argument seems to be that there can be nothing supernatural and that what appears to be God intervening is really something that God had written into the universe from its creation.
And what basic thing would that be?
According to everything you've said, educating myself on the subject is as simple as deciding to view "deism" as synonomous with "theism" or to do the same with the terms "natural" and "supernatural." All I have to do is close my eyes and I've transcended the broken glass. Nevermind that I've been asked to count the pieces. I need to educate myself on the subject by ignoring its components.
How will you ever attack the definition I provide by providing definitions that explain the same thing? You criticize me for using one definition, yet you haven't provided even one definition that supports your side of the debate.
Would that be the branch where you evade actually answering my question?
The information I desire should land right in this thread since we're talking about it. This is preferable to your current rigamarole of merely positing that I don't know what is deism.
Your fuss over deism.com is meaningless to me. If you don't think that website is authoritative, fine. You still haven't explained your position and how it qualifies as deism. You still haven't provided a definition that supports your side of this debate.
Fine. And rather than simply explain what kind of deist you supposedly are, you resort to this "you just don't know" type of antic.
Thanks for telling me that there are people who call themselves "Christian Deists." Now I'd like to know how a God who appears on earth is not intervening. And if Jesus isn't God, then I'd like to know how a God who sends someone for a divine purpose is not intervening. Or will the argument be that God threw Jesus into the big bang so as to arrive at the time he did? I guess if we say that God planted the seed at the time of creation, then magically deism can include anything and everything that is normally considered contrary to it. Oh, and how can the deist "know all the true propositions of theology" if by "rational methods alone" he cannot ascertain that either God came as Jesus or sent Jesus as His only begotten son? Furthermore, how can such person, not knowing or accepting that Jesus falls into at least one of those two categories, call him or herself a Christian?
You must be dying to show me how smart you are. I apologize for forcing you into the "if you knew anything" speech. I am so inconsiderate.
You didn't need to say that even once. You could have just presented your case and let the facts speak for themselves. You're not a winning lawyer by merely saying that the defendant is guilty or saying how you need to say that the defendant is guilty. Four hours? As far as it concerns you, I just popped out of the womb and still I understand more than you. Now that that is out of the way, we can proceed past the nonsense of positing what the other does or doesn't know.
I have provided support for why I feel that screams non-deism. If you have something with which to counter, I'm still waiting.
The distinction, as far as deism is concerned, between what is considered as natural and what is considered as supernatural is the difference between an event in the universe that is determined from the creation itself and an event in the universe that is suplemental, i.e. added later, respectively. This is a necessary distinction, lest we run into problems of equivocation. If you are arguing that the "supernatural" is really natural because God is responsible for it all, then you are ignoring the distinction between the terms "natural" and "supernatural" implicit in the standard, lexical definition of deism.
If one insists on employing a consideration of "supernatural" that deems it entirely nondifferent from what is considered as "natural," then no longer are we debating a distinction that would be between what is called "deism" and what is called "theism." This is like you asking me how many pieces a fragile glass ball breaks into when dropped on a hardwood floor from a height of five feet, me closing my eyes while the experiment is being performed, and then telling you that I see only oneness. Part of the criteria required for answering your question is that I use my eyes to count the shards of glass. Similarly, part of the required criteria for defining deism is to draw a contradistinction to (non-deistic) theism by employing concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" that maintain distinctive characteristics.
I didn't say that you necessarily said this. However, as it was unclear, I decided to cover my bases, so to speak.
Concerning your light analogy, there are a sequence of events that directly cause that light to appear. There are also a sequence of events that directly cause me to be born. These sequences are caused by previous sequences, rooting back to the moment of creation. On the other hand, Jesus, be he God Himself or the only begotten son sent by God, does not appear as a product of any natural sequence. This is exemplified very nicely by the concept of the virgin birth. Not to mention that a true deist would reject virgin birth since it requires acceptance of revelation.
Please refer to this comment or refresh my memory.
You provided three definitions that all encompass what the definition I provided does. You are the one conveying that you have a problem with the definition I gave, but any arguments you have made lead me to believe that you don't really have a problem with that definition. Rather, you have a problem with how I am viewing what constitutes a supernatural occurence or an intervention on God's part. Your argument seems to be that there can be nothing supernatural and that what appears to be God intervening is really something that God had written into the universe from its creation.
And what basic thing would that be?
According to everything you've said, educating myself on the subject is as simple as deciding to view "deism" as synonomous with "theism" or to do the same with the terms "natural" and "supernatural." All I have to do is close my eyes and I've transcended the broken glass. Nevermind that I've been asked to count the pieces. I need to educate myself on the subject by ignoring its components.
I met a pandeist once. They believe that only God existed, and then God transformed into what we call the universe. So long as the universe exists, God (as He was before the universe) does not. But eventually the universe will transform back into God. So obviously this has both the characteristics of pantheism, i.e. God being the same as the universe, and deism, i.e. God originally being something different from the universe but giving no intervention in the universe since He becomes it and thus doesn't exist in a distinct capacity.
I've been searching around for more info on Christian Deism and everything I am finding states that Christian Deists reject Jesus as being God, miracles (including virgin birth), the trinity doctrine, etc.
If there are some who believe that Jesus is God and performed miracles, and they call themselves deists, then perhaps they are semi-deists. That is, they believe that God usually lets the natural laws alone govern the universe but on rare occasions He directly intervenes.
I am unsure as to what point semi-deism becomes non-deism. If God sets up the universe to run according to natural laws, but He incarnates into it, say, 10 times within every billion years, is that still semi-deism? What about 100 times in a billion years?
If there are some who believe that Jesus is God and performed miracles, and they call themselves deists, then perhaps they are semi-deists. That is, they believe that God usually lets the natural laws alone govern the universe but on rare occasions He directly intervenes.
I am unsure as to what point semi-deism becomes non-deism. If God sets up the universe to run according to natural laws, but He incarnates into it, say, 10 times within every billion years, is that still semi-deism? What about 100 times in a billion years?
http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2007/12/if_youre_a_christian_then_act.shtml
Christ was a man, a man in every sense of the word. A gentle man, A man who had the strength, conviction, discipline, courage, at every turn to look to the needs of others, to be an example for others. Everything he did he did with others in mind.
Our focus is mostly on obtaining recognition from man, being recognized for our intellectual efforts, financial attainments, degrees, prestige, power, influence, material obtainments. Yet what are their worth? If worth is measured by that which endures, as gold and silver over and above that of lesser materials, what of that which is eternal? That which we take with us: thoughts, words, actions, and deeds. What have you done lately to encourage the eternal and strengthen the message of Christ in others?
A "deist" is someone who recognizes that there is "design" in the natural world. Scientists have discovered "design" in the universe, such as the orbiting of the earth around the sun at a distance that enables life to exist on earth. The natural world appears to be designed to operate in accord with certain natural laws, such as the law of gravity in the orbiting of the planets. From the recognition of "design" in the natural world, deists infer the existence of an intelligent "designer" called "God." In other words, a deist believes that the existence of the world is "intentional" rather than "accidental."
Our love (appreciation) for "neighbor" (other human beings) is seen in how we relate to other persons. It is a failure to love our neighbor if we say or do anything that causes human suffering or if we do not try to relieve human suffering whenever we have the ability and opportunity to do so, as taught in Jesus' parable of the "good Samaritan." (See essay, "Love Your Neighbor") This parable also teaches us to love (appreciate) anyone who acts compassionately to help others.
Although everyone knows that we should love God and "neighbor," each person must choose whether or not to commit oneself to following these natural laws. If a person is truly committed to following these laws of love, such a person will feel remorse and regret over any failure to love God or neighbor, and will repent of such failure to love. Any failure to love God or neighbor is called "sin."
The meaning of "repentance" from sin is found in Jesus' parable of the "prodigal son." (See essay, "Repentance and Forgiveness") Since everyone fails to love sometimes, the ability and willingness to repent has an important place in the practice of Christian deism. A Christian deist should review his or her words and actions each day to identify any failure to love. A Christian deist should confess such sin, ask for forgiveness from God and any person offended, and seek to make amends, if possible. If a person experiences no remorse or regret over a failure to love or if a person is unwilling to repent of such sin, that person has not committed himself or herself to following God's laws of love.
Christian deists believe that the "gospel" or message of Jesus is "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14). To Jesus, the "kingdom of God" comes "on earth" as God's "will" is done (Matthew 6:10). Since it is God's will that we love God and love our neighbor, it is obedience to God's will that brings the "kingdom of God" into reality on earth.
Christian deists believe that each of us can contribute in some way toward creating the "kingdom of God" on earth by living as God intends for us to live. As a Jew, Jesus originally believed that God intended for the Jewish people to establish an independent nation which would be obedient to God. The Jews called this the "kingdom of God." But Jesus' encounters with non-Jewish persons (a Caananite woman concerned about her daughter, a Roman army officer concerned about his paralyzed servant, and a Samaritan woman's interest in how to worship God) gave Jesus a deeper understanding of humanity and led him to a broader view of the "kingdom of God" that includes persons of "all nations."
As we encounter persons who are different from ourselves, we can recognize that we share in a common humanity with mutual interests, needs and hopes. We outgrow our narrow and provincial view of humanity and develop a broader and inclusive view, just as Jesus outgrew his nationalistic concept of the "kingdom of God."
In summary, the central beliefs in Christian deism are:
1. God is our Creator.
2. God intends for us to love God and to love each other.
3. We should repent of "sin," which is any failure to love.
4. God forgives us if we repent of our sins and we forgive others who repent of their sins against us.
5. The "gospel" (good news) is that the kingdom of God is a reality on earth now for those who are committed to following God's laws of love.
6. The life we have received from God must be returned to God eventually. If we try to live now as God intends for us to live, we can trust God to take care of the future.
These are some of the basic beliefs in Christian deism, as I see them. Each Christian deist can apply these beliefs in the ways that seem reasonable to the individual. The practice of Christian deism is an individual matter and no one is limited to my understanding of what it means to be a Christian deist. Christian deists believe that God gave us the ability to reason (think logically), and no person is required to believe anything that seems unreasonable to that individual.
Happy Haliday and Merry Christmas to all of you and wish & hope to bring peace on the Earth.
M. Reza Salami
As I've stated before, there are many branches of deism just like there are multiple branches of most religions practiced today. If one cannot find what they are searching for one should hit up a library, amazon.com or any place that has a plethora of religious texts on hand. Again, there is no uniform thought or theme amongst deists (including christian deists) except for ONE thing and the one thing is very simple to grasp and is usually stated by all who adhere to such beliefs. To imply or openly state that christian deism is completely different from deism is incorrect, as completely different would mean they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and have nothing in common. Different? Yes, just as you have differences between Pentacostals, who are Christians yet don't adhere to the doctrine of the trinity as opposed to Baptists who are Christians and do adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Now thats my take on the subject, and although an appeal to authority fallacy would stir things up a bit, I won't speak on it again because I see what type of people I'm dealing with and don't care to go back and forth over the issue. If you've done enough research and you think you know what you're talking about great. If you haven't done any research and only looked into the subject to prove whatever it is you thought you knew great. However, I won't be partaking in any back and forth discussions regrading it.
Believe what you want. Label how you want. "Transcend" all you want. At the end of the day nothing will actually change, so there it is.
Christ was a man, a man in every sense of the word. A gentle man, A man who had the strength, conviction, discipline, courage, at every turn to look to the needs of others, to be an example for others. Everything he did he did with others in mind.
Our focus is mostly on obtaining recognition from man, being recognized for our intellectual efforts, financial attainments, degrees, prestige, power, influence, material obtainments. Yet what are their worth? If worth is measured by that which endures, as gold and silver over and above that of lesser materials, what of that which is eternal? That which we take with us: thoughts, words, actions, and deeds. What have you done lately to encourage the eternal and strengthen the message of Christ in others?
A "deist" is someone who recognizes that there is "design" in the natural world. Scientists have discovered "design" in the universe, such as the orbiting of the earth around the sun at a distance that enables life to exist on earth. The natural world appears to be designed to operate in accord with certain natural laws, such as the law of gravity in the orbiting of the planets. From the recognition of "design" in the natural world, deists infer the existence of an intelligent "designer" called "God." In other words, a deist believes that the existence of the world is "intentional" rather than "accidental."
Our love (appreciation) for "neighbor" (other human beings) is seen in how we relate to other persons. It is a failure to love our neighbor if we say or do anything that causes human suffering or if we do not try to relieve human suffering whenever we have the ability and opportunity to do so, as taught in Jesus' parable of the "good Samaritan." (See essay, "Love Your Neighbor") This parable also teaches us to love (appreciate) anyone who acts compassionately to help others.
Although everyone knows that we should love God and "neighbor," each person must choose whether or not to commit oneself to following these natural laws. If a person is truly committed to following these laws of love, such a person will feel remorse and regret over any failure to love God or neighbor, and will repent of such failure to love. Any failure to love God or neighbor is called "sin."
The meaning of "repentance" from sin is found in Jesus' parable of the "prodigal son." (See essay, "Repentance and Forgiveness") Since everyone fails to love sometimes, the ability and willingness to repent has an important place in the practice of Christian deism. A Christian deist should review his or her words and actions each day to identify any failure to love. A Christian deist should confess such sin, ask for forgiveness from God and any person offended, and seek to make amends, if possible. If a person experiences no remorse or regret over a failure to love or if a person is unwilling to repent of such sin, that person has not committed himself or herself to following God's laws of love.
Christian deists believe that the "gospel" or message of Jesus is "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14). To Jesus, the "kingdom of God" comes "on earth" as God's "will" is done (Matthew 6:10). Since it is God's will that we love God and love our neighbor, it is obedience to God's will that brings the "kingdom of God" into reality on earth.
Christian deists believe that each of us can contribute in some way toward creating the "kingdom of God" on earth by living as God intends for us to live. As a Jew, Jesus originally believed that God intended for the Jewish people to establish an independent nation which would be obedient to God. The Jews called this the "kingdom of God." But Jesus' encounters with non-Jewish persons (a Caananite woman concerned about her daughter, a Roman army officer concerned about his paralyzed servant, and a Samaritan woman's interest in how to worship God) gave Jesus a deeper understanding of humanity and led him to a broader view of the "kingdom of God" that includes persons of "all nations."
As we encounter persons who are different from ourselves, we can recognize that we share in a common humanity with mutual interests, needs and hopes. We outgrow our narrow and provincial view of humanity and develop a broader and inclusive view, just as Jesus outgrew his nationalistic concept of the "kingdom of God."
In summary, the central beliefs in Christian deism are:
1. God is our Creator.
2. God intends for us to love God and to love each other.
3. We should repent of "sin," which is any failure to love.
4. God forgives us if we repent of our sins and we forgive others who repent of their sins against us.
5. The "gospel" (good news) is that the kingdom of God is a reality on earth now for those who are committed to following God's laws of love.
6. The life we have received from God must be returned to God eventually. If we try to live now as God intends for us to live, we can trust God to take care of the future.
These are some of the basic beliefs in Christian deism, as I see them. Each Christian deist can apply these beliefs in the ways that seem reasonable to the individual. The practice of Christian deism is an individual matter and no one is limited to my understanding of what it means to be a Christian deist. Christian deists believe that God gave us the ability to reason (think logically), and no person is required to believe anything that seems unreasonable to that individual.
Happy Haliday and Merry Christmas to all of you and wish & hope to bring peace on the Earth.
M. Reza Salami
As I've stated before, there are many branches of deism just like there are multiple branches of most religions practiced today. If one cannot find what they are searching for one should hit up a library, amazon.com or any place that has a plethora of religious texts on hand. Again, there is no uniform thought or theme amongst deists (including christian deists) except for ONE thing and the one thing is very simple to grasp and is usually stated by all who adhere to such beliefs. To imply or openly state that christian deism is completely different from deism is incorrect, as completely different would mean they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and have nothing in common. Different? Yes, just as you have differences between Pentacostals, who are Christians yet don't adhere to the doctrine of the trinity as opposed to Baptists who are Christians and do adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Now thats my take on the subject, and although an appeal to authority fallacy would stir things up a bit, I won't speak on it again because I see what type of people I'm dealing with and don't care to go back and forth over the issue. If you've done enough research and you think you know what you're talking about great. If you haven't done any research and only looked into the subject to prove whatever it is you thought you knew great. However, I won't be partaking in any back and forth discussions regrading it.
Believe what you want. Label how you want. "Transcend" all you want. At the end of the day nothing will actually change, so there it is.
This is not a defining characteristic of deism. Non-deistic theists hold this belief as well.
Well, I would argue that certain forms of so-called theism actually court atheism and thus are atheistic. For example, I would say pantheism is atheism. Pantheists just replace "universe" with "God" (or "Goddess"), but they don't actually believe in a distinct deity of any sort. I would also argue that polytheism is a pseudo-theism and thus in itself constitutes atheism. The belief in many "gods" who each control some aspect or are in charge of some function in the universe is just as theistic as believing that there are space-aliens who control the weather on earth. It's funny how nobody considers the belief in Scientology's Xenu character a case of theism just because the label "god" isn't arbitrarily attached. A similar case against henotheism and kathenotheism can be made seeing that they are really just specialized forms of polytheism.
Strict deism says that God is not immanent in the universe whatsoever; that God created the universe and then has no direct affect on it thereafter. I find this to be a limiting and ignorant view of the relationship God would necessarily have with His energies. According to the Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, the philosophy of theism in most interpretations is of God being partly immanent in the universe and partly transcendent.
I wonder what's the Christian Deist's view on the Holy Spirit.
Well, I would argue that certain forms of so-called theism actually court atheism and thus are atheistic. For example, I would say pantheism is atheism. Pantheists just replace "universe" with "God" (or "Goddess"), but they don't actually believe in a distinct deity of any sort. I would also argue that polytheism is a pseudo-theism and thus in itself constitutes atheism. The belief in many "gods" who each control some aspect or are in charge of some function in the universe is just as theistic as believing that there are space-aliens who control the weather on earth. It's funny how nobody considers the belief in Scientology's Xenu character a case of theism just because the label "god" isn't arbitrarily attached. A similar case against henotheism and kathenotheism can be made seeing that they are really just specialized forms of polytheism.
Strict deism says that God is not immanent in the universe whatsoever; that God created the universe and then has no direct affect on it thereafter. I find this to be a limiting and ignorant view of the relationship God would necessarily have with His energies. According to the Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, the philosophy of theism in most interpretations is of God being partly immanent in the universe and partly transcendent.
I wonder what's the Christian Deist's view on the Holy Spirit.
Non-deistic theists also believe this.
A non-deistic theist can, for example, find it unreasonable to believe that Muhammed was a prophet of God. Actually most, if not all, Christians believe just this way. And yet, they aren't all deists.
Non-deistic theists also often subscribe to the following axioms:
So in response to the writer of the article I've quoted, I find the following to be more-or-less appropriate:
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." (from the movie Billy Madison)
A non-deistic theist can, for example, find it unreasonable to believe that Muhammed was a prophet of God. Actually most, if not all, Christians believe just this way. And yet, they aren't all deists.
Non-deistic theists also often subscribe to the following axioms:
So in response to the writer of the article I've quoted, I find the following to be more-or-less appropriate:
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." (from the movie Billy Madison)