Man is faced with a problem

[poptart]

Ephesians 2:1-5

1: And you (believers) hath he (God) quickened (made alive), who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4: But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5: Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)


As these verses from Ephesians describe, man has died a spiritual death and is now being dragged about by satan.
It says in verse 3 that the very nature of man is that he is this way.
God promised man that if he broke the Covenant he would surely die (Genesis 2:17), and that is what has happened.
It is man's very nature to be ultimately oppressed and to be a failure.
It is inevitable and inescapable because people are captured at the spiritual level.


People become mentally oppressed in so many ways.
Physical problems come.
They die and go to the hell that is prepared for satan.
Their 'spiritual problems' are passed right on down to their children.


But God gave the Christ, who solves all problems of man -- past, present and future.

Past problems - Romans 8:2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Present problems - John 14:27: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Future problems - Luke 10:20: Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

[BSmack]

So some snake oil salesman 2000 years ago says I was "born with sin" and I have a problem? Show me some evidence of this "original sin" that does not spring forth from the Bible. You know, what people who use logic would call "corroborating evidence". Otherwise, get fucked.

[Tom In VA]

"corroborating evidence". ?

Hmm, look around you.

Most beasts in the field are in touch with their natural instincts. They sleep when they're supposed to sleep, eat what they're supposed to eat, kill when they're supposed to kill, and fuck when they're SUPPOSED to fuck.

Humans are riddled with warped instincts. Some of us eat more than we should, fuck(or want to fuck) more than we should, fly off into rage disproportionate to the issue at hand, envy others with such an overwhelming controlling force that it causes us to do things to each other that animals do not do.

When was the last time you saw a cow sitting in a couch explaining her problems to another cow ? Do bears have need for prisons ?

You say you believe in "Darwinism", this might be true - I know I believe that evolution is the method by which God chose his creation to expand - but you don't entirely believe in "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" and purely corporal existence.

[Tom In VA]

It is man's very nature to be ultimately oppressed and to be a failure.
It is inevitable and inescapable

This doctrine of "original sin" is one of the main reasons why Christianity is such a utterly repulsive and contemptible cult. It is a "religion" suitable only for mewling cowards and self-loathing hypocrites. I believe that explains why so many perverts and other social deviants are attracted to it.

Not entirely all bullshit. Although I disagree with the notion that the concept - CONCEPT - of original sin is solely owned by Christianity. Many of the world's religions observe isses with humanity fitting into the natural world. Based on observable behavior, the story of Cain vs. Abel is not the only story that observes man's proclivity to ency and jealousy. David's story and his - murder - in order to satisfy his lust with Bathsheba is not the only tale of humankind's lustful drive and the consequences of same. Buddists for instance have a list of "enemies" that is comparable to the "Seven Deadly Sins". This notion of being "separated" from something, this sense of "not belonging" to a world that is hostile towards the fragile human species might just be the inspiration behind "original sin".

We have issues. We all have issues. Your statement that those who are perverted and socially deviant being attracted to religion is not entirely false. A man with a broken leg, needs a crutch to walk. Now I understand there are the rare birds that have absolutely no fault and do not feel they need the guidance and direction provided by religion or some spiritual regimen. Far from suggesting that "pride" is not allowing them to see those faults, I would simply suggest that if religion keeps 100 men from raping and one happens to fall, a 99% average is pretty good.

[Tom In VA]

I would simply suggest that if religion keeps 100 men from raping and one happens to fall, a 99% average is pretty good.

So that's the only thing keeping you from a rampage of rape and murder? Religion?

Moral and ethical behavior derive from self-respect not some mystical savior. Genuine self-respect is simply not possible under a system of belief which is predicated on the worthlessness and "inevitable failure" of mankind. It is coercive, demeaning and ultimately abusive.

First, I didn't mention me at all.

Second, YOU apparently have that ability but I suggest YOU are in the exceptional minority. Trillions of people have reaped the benefit and developed self discipline, true self-respect, through spiritual regimen. To accept that humans are inherently "flawed" does not mean that one need to wallow in self-pity, in fact it is quite the opposite.

Of course, the argument you pose is based in fact. There have been times where people would exploit and allow themselves to be exploited due this notion.
But the TRUTH in time, reveals itself, and people no longer accept being exploited. The struggle of humanity is riddled with this. You exploit me by using "original sin" as a means to tell me I am worthless, I don't believe that is what "original sin" is all about so I fight back, WIN - and then one of two things happen - I exploit or govern fairly. Either way, there is a constant struggle between what Lincoln called the "better angels of our nature" and the lesser ones. Our Constitution was founded with this in mind.

It's a cycle. It's the human cycle. Always has been and always will be until such time that humans no longer exist.

[BSmack]

"corroborating evidence". ?

Hmm, look around you.

Most beasts in the field are in touch with their natural instincts. They sleep when they're supposed to sleep, eat what they're supposed to eat, kill when they're supposed to kill, and fuck when they're SUPPOSED to fuck.

Absolute fucking rubbish. Any animal with an abundant food supply and a lack of natural predators is capable of over indulgence.

For example...

Humans are riddled with warped instincts. Some of us eat more than we should, fuck(or want to fuck) more than we should, fly off into rage disproportionate to the issue at hand, envy others with such an overwhelming controlling force that it causes us to do things to each other that animals do not do.

These instincts all apply to beasts as well as man. Animals can and do all of those things.

When was the last time you saw a cow sitting in a couch explaining her problems to another cow?

When was the last time you saw a cow quoting some motherfucking Shakespeare? Lemme help you along. The ability to speak and to reason cognitively are GOOD things. They separate us from the beasts and enable us to communicate thoughts and ideas in ways that common beasts cannot.

Do bears have need for prisons?

I'm sure they would have plenty of need for prisons if they could BUILD them. Motherfucking lack of opposable thumbs.

You say there are no thug bears out there?

You say you believe in "Darwinism", this might be true - I know I believe that evolution is the method by which God chose his creation to expand - but you don't entirely believe in "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" and purely corporal existence.

I'm an agnostic. You can't prove negative existence. But at the same time, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of God or the divinity of Jesus. I would LIKE to believe. I mean it sure would be nice if there was an afterlife. But I'm not going to MAKE myself believe just because some douchebag in a pulpit says I should with no evidence whatsoever save some 2000 year old tome that was the Weekly World News of the 1st and 2nd Century.

[Tom In VA]

I didn't bring up the divinity of Jesus. The notion of "original sin" and our fallible nature as compared to that of the other beasts is not limited to Judaism or Christianity, in fact it is quite universal.

[Tom In VA]

The notion of "original sin" and our fallible nature as compared to that of the other beasts is not limited to Judaism or Christianity, in fact it is quite universal.

Rubbish. Complete, utter, 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit.

How so ? Are you saying that the Muslims do not believe in a notion of original sin ? That the Hindu and Buddhists don't acknowledge that the human is somehow separated from something ?

I might need to ask what your conception of "original sin" is then, it seems we cannot engage in a proper discourse without divulging that information.

My concept of "original sin" is that we are born into a state separated from God. While I understand you do not believe in God, what is your perception of what "original sin" is, intellectually ?

[BSmack]

I didn't bring up the divinity of Jesus.

I never said that you did.

The notion of "original sin" and our fallible nature as compared to that of the other beasts is not limited to Judaism or Christianity, in fact it is quite universal.

BTW: Original sin is not even a part of Jewish theology. It is in fact, based on Paul's misreading/distorting of Old testament Scripture and has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism whatsoever.

[battery chucka' one]

I didn't bring up the divinity of Jesus.

I never said that you did.

The notion of "original sin" and our fallible nature as compared to that of the other beasts is not limited to Judaism or Christianity, in fact it is quite universal.

BTW: Original sin is not even a part of Jewish theology. It is in fact, based on Paul's misreading/distorting of Old testament Scripture and has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism whatsoever.

Ya' know, guys. Sometimes you just get a sense that somebody just doesn't get it. I just had that sense after I read this post. Carry on.

[Tom In VA]

BTW: Original sin is not even a part of Jewish theology. It is in fact, based on Paul's misreading/distorting of Old testament Scripture and has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism whatsoever.

Pardon my semantic deviance and error. My perception of "original sin" is not in line with the traditional theological definitions. I have a much broader interpretation of it, rightly or wrongly, and have found that the notion that "Man is faced with a problem" predominantly bent on the inner struggle between "good and evil" is not limited to Christianity. I errantly use the term "original sin" to describe this.

The universal principle to which I refer is that mankind is "faced with a problem". This problem, I believe, is universal and addressed in religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I ordered them that way for a reason too. :D

I also believe the solution, for some, is a spiritual regimen. I say "for some" as I am not equipped to prescribe it to anyone. But based on my personal experience and the experience of others who have opted to share their story with me, this spiritual regimen has in fact led to better conduct in life. It isn't necessarily based in "punishment", but rather tiring of the adverse consequences associated with acting out "in the problem" rather than living in the "solution".

[Felix]

Ya' know, guys. Sometimes you just get a sense that somebody just doesn't get it. I just had that sense after I read this post. Carry on.

pretty much a stock answer....someone who doesn't follow your particular brand of magic/mysticism is always the one that "just doesn't get it"

[Goober McTuber]

Ya' know, guys. Sometimes you just get a sense that somebody just doesn't get it. I just had that sense after I read this post. Carry on.

pretty much a stock answer....someone who doesn't follow your particular brand of magic/mysticism is always the one that "just doesn't get it"

Also quite amusing when you consider that BCO is one of the stupidest motherfuckers on the internet.

[poptart]

So some snake oil salesman 2000 years ago says I was "born with sin" and I have a problem? Show me some evidence of this "original sin" that does not spring forth from the Bible. You know, what people who use logic would call "corroborating evidence". Otherwise, get fucked.

I've had discussion about original sin in here before.
Being as you are not a believer in Christ, I don't know what kind of concept of 'sin' you have, B.

But to try to answer your question as simply as possible, everyone will sin, and the Bible very clearly tells us this.
And of course we see this too.

So if everyone does something, it points to that something as being part of their nature or condition.

[battery chucka' one]

So if everyone does something, it points to that something as being part of their nature or condition.

What it points to is a system of behavioral control that has set you up for failure thus creating your dependency.

It's foolish to believe that you can do whatever you want to do without any accountability. That's perhaps the most selfish attitude to take.

Of course, MVScal, you have no such dependencies, right? On top of it all, you're not selfish either. Right?

[battery chucka' one]

It's foolish to believe that you can do whatever you want to do without any accountability.

I agree. I am accountable to myself for my actions. I have no need of primitive superstitions to moderate my behavior.

Nice to know that you don't find yourself accountable to either the laws of the land or society. Speaks volumes. Just sayin'.

[BSmack]

I agree. I am accountable to myself for my actions. I have no need of primitive superstitions to moderate my behavior.

Nice to know that you don't find yourself accountable to either the laws of the land or society. Speaks volumes. Just sayin'.

Only an absolute moron could extrapolate what you just said from mvscal's post.

[Nacho]

It's foolish to believe that you can do whatever you want to do without any accountability.

I agree. I am accountable to myself for my actions. I have no need of primitive superstitions to moderate my behavior.

How do you determine if your actions are right or wrong?

Is there a right or wrong?

If there is a right or wrong, then maybe Poptarts on to something with this whole "sin" concept.

[battery chucka' one]

How do you determine if your actions are right or wrong?

Do they cause harm to another unjustly? If so, then that action is wrong. It's pretty fucking simple shit here.

Minding your own fucking business is pretty good starting point.

But when is it just do do harm to another? Is that for you alone to decide? Yes, it's pretty simple. So why aren't you answering it?

Also, you never answered to my earlier assertion. Again, simple stuff. So, why aren't you answering?

[Tom In VA]

How do you determine if your actions are right or wrong?

Do they cause harm to another unjustly? If so, then that action is wrong. It's pretty fucking simple shit here.

Minding your own fucking business is pretty good starting point.

While we disagree on the issue of God and the like this post gets a tremendous RACK.


Quite frankly, it's the same thing that is at the heart of a spiritual regimen or an actual religious practice, in my opinion.

[battery chucka' one]

But when is it just do do harm to another?

To prevent that other from doing harm or to redress past injuries done by that person.

Oh, so you think it's alright to harm another in the case of revenge? Okay. Next question.

Is that for you alone to decide?

In the circumstance of self-defense, the answer is yes.

Oh, so now you add qualifiers. Great. Next question.

Also, you never answered to my earlier ascertation. Again, simple stuff. Why aren't you answering?

The simple answer is that you are an idiot and many, if not most, of your sub-moronic ravings will go unanswered at my discretion.

And what exactly is an "ascertation" besides further evidence that you are a semi-literate dumbfuck? Weren't you supposed to be a "screen writer" or something? I would think that actually being able to communicate in written English would be an asset to one who is intent on making a living writing in English. Then again, you really aren't making much of a living as a screen writer are you?

You probably even wonder why that is.

Dropping grammar smack. Always a last tool of one who has nothing to bring to the table. I mis-typed. I also edited it so it was correct long before your last post. However, since you have nothing else, please feel free to attack my typing/grammar.

Again, you don't answer 'at your discretion'. My hypothesis is that this is because you know that to do so will merely make you look more foolish than you already are.

Perhaps eugenics can help us if we could use it to keep you from ever breeding. While no doubt your bitterness is rather harmless on this board, I shudder at the thought of a child forced to be raised in whatever household you might head. What I'm saying is that perhaps it'd be best if you go ahead and don't have any offspring. Thanks in advance.

[battery chucka' one]

Christianity's frequently aggressive proselytizing shows they have a lot of work to do in the "minding your own fucking business" department. It was that annoying habit which inclined Romans to toss them to lions or burn them alive on occassions when Christians made themselves particularly obnoxious.

The Romans were very tolerant and easy going in terms of religion, so you had to be a tremendous asshole in order to get pegged to a cross.

We'll give you a chance to redeem yourself on this foolish post. Can you give us a link?

[Tom In VA]

Christianity's frequently aggressive proselytizing shows they have a lot of work to do in the "minding your own fucking business" department. It was that annoying habit which inclined Romans to toss them to lions or burn them alive on occasions when Christians made themselves particularly obnoxious.

The Romans were very tolerant and easy going in terms of religion, so you had to be a tremendous asshole in order to get pegged to a cross.

Well I understand you have nothing but contempt for Christianity, but I don't think the concept poptart outlines using Christian literature, is limited to Christianity.

If you believe Jesus was put to the cross, He was put to death because the Jews of the time REQUESTED he be put death. NOT because he grew to be a threat to Roman tolerance for religion.

When the Romans were burning Christians, it had nothing to do with abuse of power. It had to do with scapegoating them, primarily, as they were NEW and different. The abuse of power issues did not come until much later when Christianity - specifically the Pope and his "minions" were in a position of power to do so.

Christ Himself, referred many times to situations wherein one should ensure his or her own house in order before they even THINK to peer into another's. Back to poptart's initial post, it is my personal belief that I have enough work to do within my own house to keep me occupied for a lifetime. I don't think I am that much different from anyone else in the world.

[battery chucka' one]

Christianity's frequently aggressive proselytizing shows they have a lot of work to do in the "minding your own fucking business" department. It was that annoying habit which inclined Romans to toss them to lions or burn them alive on occassions when Christians made themselves particularly obnoxious.

The Romans were very tolerant and easy going in terms of religion, so you had to be a tremendous asshole in order to get pegged to a cross.

We'll give you a chance to redeem yourself on this foolish post. Can you give us a link?

No simple internet link will remediate your profound ignorance.

If you are determined to try, From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C to A. D. 68 by HH Scullard is a excellent introductory text into Roman social, political and economic life during that period.

I accept that you have no basis to stand upon for that which you claim. Again, you have nothing. Next question.

[Felix]

I accept that you have no basis to stand upon for that which you claim. Again, you have nothing. Next question.

this is a joke right.....I mean seriously you can't be this ignorant in real life

[Tom In VA]

Utter nonsense. First they really weren't new. Early Christians were regarded as a sect of Jews. Second, Romans loved novelty. Far from being threatened by NEW religions, they were enthusiastically adopted by the urban elites like fads or trends in fashion (and discarded just as quickly). Some did stick. Romans and Greeks were both captivated by Egyptian religion and many Egyptian cults enjoyed large followings in Rome and were openly tolerated so long as they didn't create a public nuisance.

Some didn't stick. The worship of Cybele, a Phyrgian mother goddess from central Anatolia, had a brief period of popularity, but they ran afoul of the popular sentiment due to the tendency of some of the more enthusiastic adherents to ritually castrate themselves. The Romans tended to frown upon such shenanigens. The cult compromised and settled for cutting off a bull's balls instead and they were pretty much left alone to their tauroboliums.

I see, thanks for the new information. Must be some revisionist history I read implying that the persecution of Christians was primarily based on some perverse pleasure. So, the real reason, is that the Christians were running around proselytizing - presumably about evils of the circus, the "vomitorium", and of course all the unprotected casual sex with - umm - Everything and anything with a hole in it. Those evil Christers, running around ancient Rome explaining the unnatural aspects of what Romans were doing. They were ahead of their time, actually. Now we know bulimic purging of ones stomach is bad for the health, the perils of unhealthy sex acts, and of course that there are much more efficient and hygienically sound means of disposing of dead bodies and decaying flesh.

[Nacho]

That's not to say that some persecutions weren't the result of extreme paranoia on the part of individual emperors but, for the most part, Christians just annoyed the shit out of people and it amused Romans to see obnoxious, sanctimonius twats like BCO fed to lions.

Is this right or wrong of them to do this?

Wouldn't this be unjust and therefore wrong?

In other words wouldn't their actions be "sin" or at least indicate some "sinful" influence?

Where did that "sin" originate?

[battery chucka' one]

He was put to death because the Jews of the time REQUESTED he be put death. NOT because he grew to be a threat to Roman tolerance for religion.

He was put to the cross because he was a shit disturber and very clear threat to public order. The Jews were a fractious and quarrelsome lot, so the Romans were pretty quick to put the clamp down on anyone or anything that would get them riled up.

It had to do with scapegoating them, primarily, as they were NEW and different.

Utter nonsense. First they really weren't new. Early Christians were regarded as a sect of Jews. Second, Romans loved novelty. Far from being threatened by NEW religions, they were enthusiastically adopted by the urban elites like fads or trends in fashion (and discarded just as quickly). Some did stick. Romans and Greeks were both captivated by Egyptian religion and many Egyptian cults enjoyed large followings in Rome and were openly tolerated so long as they didn't create a public nuisance.

Some didn't stick. The worship of Cybele, a Phyrgian mother goddess from central Anatolia, had a brief period of popularity, but they ran afoul of the popular sentiment due to the tendency of some of the more enthusiastic adherents to ritually castrate themselves. The Romans tended to frown upon such shenanigens. The cult compromised and settled for cutting off a bull's balls instead and they were pretty much left alone to their tauroboliums.

Wrong. The Romans looked at outside religions as a 'social' interaction or a 'club' of sorts. That's why they allowed this. However, with Christianity which, regardless of how you want to spin it, was a new religion, it was seen as a superstition that was taken to an incredible extent. They weren't used to such all-encompassing belief structures. To be blunt, they considered Christianity to be 'bad for society'. Of course, it didn't help that Christianity was so incredibly different than any religion that had come before it. Christians were also distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Probably was a strike against Christians that they were more devoted to a crucified (and resurrected) God than the state.

[Tom In VA]

Where did that "sin" originate?

Probably from being told they had "original sin" by the annoying Christers.

Still begs the question, is it there or is it not ? Seems to me the concept of it is much larger than Judaism or Christianity and to limit the discussion to "Christer Bashing" is .... a standard T1B thread.

[Felix]

Still begs the question, is it there or is it not ?

it really isn't a question....to those that believe it's a fact...to those that don't, it's a myth....you don't find to many fence sitters when the topic of "original sin" comes up

[Tom In VA]

fence sitters

Sinners and Sodomites.

[Felix]

fence sitters

Sinners and Sodomites.

ever been to Topeka

[Tom In VA]

ever been to Topeka

Not yet. Do they need some proselytizing ?

[battery chucka' one]

They weren't used to such all-encompassing belief structures.

What they "weren't used to" was being hectored by shabby provincial louts with threats of eternal damnation for those who do not share their superstitions.

Judaism was equally "all-encompasing" and secretive yet Jews worshiped as they pleased in communities throughout the Empire. They weren't entirely trusted due to those secretive ways, but they weren't actively persecuted save in cases of open revolt.

Link?

I have a feeling that Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Maximinus the Thracian, Decius Trajan, Valerian, Aurelian, Diocletian and Galerius, and Julian the Apostate might have different feelings than you for their motivations. Not all killed Christians, but all desired to persecute the church.

The sad thing is that I have a feeling your 'enlightened' nature will believe that they were justified in doing this. Or am I wrong?

[Tom In VA]

They weren't used to such all-encompassing belief structures.

What they "weren't used to" was being hectored by shabby provincial louts with threats of eternal damnation for those who do not share their superstitions.

Judaism was equally "all-encompasing" and secretive yet Jews worshiped as they pleased in communities throughout the Empire. They weren't entirely trusted due to those secretive ways, but they weren't actively persecuted save in cases of open revolt.

Link?

I have a feeling that Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Maximinus the Thracian, Decius Trajan, Valerian, Aurelian, Diocletian and Galerius, and Julian the Apostate might have different feelings than you for their motivations. Not all killed Christians, but all desired to persecute the church.

Then there was Caligula, of course the fact I watched that movie shows I am a sinner. Or maybe not, it was ummm ... errr ... scholarly research. :D

[battery chucka' one]

Then there was Caligula, of course the fact I watched that movie shows I am a sinner. Or maybe not, it was ummm ... errr ... scholarly research. :D

Well, we're all sinners. Funny you should say this as I'm right now (before I read your post) I'm reading a review of it on allmovie.com. Listing all the emperors, I had a desire to look up movies about Roman emperors. First looked up Titus (not an emperor) and then progressed to Caligula. I've never seen (though I do know the LB song that it inspired) and have heard it's rather atrocious (also laden with some somewhat graphic orgy scenes).

[Felix]

Then there was Caligula

Sinners and Sodomites

[Tom In VA]

Then there was Caligula

Sinners and Sodomites

You wouldn't dare annoy lil' boots with this sanctimonious tripe else it was off to the lions with you.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Let's not forget that soon after the Christian denomination got some power, it proceeded to turn around and then persecute other faiths.

So much for the claims of moral superiority.

[Tom In VA]

Let's not forget that soon after the Christian denomination got some power, it proceeded to turn around and then persecute other faiths.

So much for the claims of moral superiority.

Indeed, in practice. However a fundamental precept is that we are all prone to sin or "unhealthy behavior" of some sort - this is universal amongst most all religions. Saying this, doesn't necessarily equate to "I am superior to you". Poptart's quote does not, on the surface, impugn one into moral inferiority and leave one with the sense he or she should subjugate themselves to those perceived as morally superior.

This happened, mvscal is absolutely correct in that assertion, but the concept itself does not cause that to happen. In fact, I would contend that the fact the human species is "incomplete" and suffers from this condition that makes the possibility of oppression and allowing one to be oppressed possible at all.

I think we're all well aware of Christianity's failings throughout it's evolution and split into different denominations. Those failings themselves are a testimony to the fact we are ALL prone to sin and that "inspiration from above (or around) and work are needed to avoid it and overcome these proclivities.

The concept of being born with this, tagged as it were, is simply based on observable human nature or "patterns of behavior". And it occurred before the Christ "Cult" was ever assembled. In fact, it occurred long before Christ was even around.

The difference between Christianity and the other religions is that Christians believe that .....


I'll have to let poptart finish this part if he chooses.