We're not talking about a scientific concept; we're talking about a theological concept.
Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish and a dodge to boot. The whole point of the bible and teachings of Christianity is to freaking teach. If you fall on the "we don't understand", then all of it is bullshit.
No, it means that the expression of his love doesn't conform to our expectations of it every step of the way and in real time.
Not being able to perceive a person's love does not mean their love is meaningless, all the more so when that person is beyond orders of magnitude higher than us since they are the creator and not the creature.
It might mean we don't feel it tangibly at all times, but again this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the book of Job.
One of the first things it teaches is that we can't understand everything about God. If you don't understand that, you haven't read the Bible much.
Incorrect and still a dodge. The bible is not a coherent work. It is a collection of multiple sources, from multiple perspectives over a significant time period and rarely (if ever) told in first hand. Of course one cannot understand god as a consistent being using such a work as one's standard. But that is still God's fault, if he is truly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Wait, is the bible an incoherent collection of multiple sources or does it have a "whole point" which is to "freaking teach"? Make your mind up. And what's all this "omni" stuff? None of those words is in the Bible and the third is not the one you're looking for (that would be "omnipresent").
We have been reminded that you are under no obligation to reveal your own beliefs, but this kind of mangled garbage on the heels of comments about "basic logic" does not commend your belief system to me, whatever it may be.
It depends whether your use of the present tense is to describe how you are currently feeling or how you have always felt in all those respects, without exception, from your earliest memory until now.
If the latter, then it's certainly not reasonable to expect you to derive meaningfulness from the concept of a loving God. But even that doesn't mean you might not come to do so later. What's to lose?
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am saying that the God of the three O's is inconsistent with reality. To quote the inestimable Sammy Davis Jr.: 'Something's got to give'
Well, I’m with @Eutychus on a lot of things, but one of them is the general inconsistency in the thread of your arguments. First you state that God, granted certain hypothetical conditions, is a bastard; then you claim it’s an assertion no-one has refuted; then you state that it’s not an assertion; then you’re not accusing anyone of anything. It may be true, as you state upthread, that one’s beliefs are irrelevant to one’s arguments. But if they’re sufficiently amorphous that they allow simple contradiction of whatever the last post in the thread was, regardless of coherence ...
However, against my own better judgement: if indeed all you have been doing is stating the logical Problem of Evil, in those terms I suppose all I’m saying is that if the Os of omniscience and omnipotence are granted, it’s difficult to move from these to a denial of omnibenevolence. Perhaps that’s an academic point,
More important, I think, is to recognise that there are actually four points of potential flex here: the Os, and one’s own understanding of reality - for whatever the nature of God, surely we are not omniscient. And this is what I strive to do: to understand the love and benevolence of God, opaque to me though it is, through prayer and meditation.
In your view, of course, this is mere ‘handwaving’. But one cannot even wave one’s hands, if one is bound by straitjackets of the heart or mind. And it is to me the deepest consolation I know, for myself or for others.
We have been reminded that you are under no obligation to reveal your own beliefs, but this kind of mangled garbage on the heels of comments about "basic logic" does not commend your belief system to me, whatever it may be.
I am addressing the inconsistencies of Christianity. That is all that needs to be addressed. If you cannot, fine. presenting my arguments as inconsistent is more a misread than anything resembling a proper criticism.
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am saying that the God of the three O's is inconsistent with reality. To quote the inestimable Sammy Davis Jr.: 'Something's got to give'
Well, I’m with @Eutychus on a lot of things, but one of them is the general inconsistency in the thread of your arguments. First you state that God, granted certain hypothetical conditions, is a bastard; then you claim it’s an assertion no-one has refuted; then you state that it’s not an assertion; then you’re not accusing anyone of anything.
There is nothing inconsistent in my position.
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion. And no one has refuted it.
However, against my own better judgement: if indeed all you have been doing is stating the logical Problem of Evil, in those terms I suppose all I’m saying is that if the Os of omniscience and omnipotence are granted, it’s difficult to move from these to a denial of omnibenevolence. Perhaps that’s an academic point,
I do not think it is academic if one is a believer. Every religion that I have put any time into understanding has inconsistencies and contradictions. "It is not for us to understand" is insufficient, IMO. The problems inherent in the contradictions are part of the reason people lose their faith.
More important, I think, is to recognise that there are actually four points of potential flex here: the Os, and one’s own understanding of reality - for whatever the nature of God, surely we are not omniscient. And this is what I strive to do: to understand the love and benevolence of God, opaque to me though it is, through prayer and meditation.
In your view, of course, this is mere ‘handwaving’. But one cannot even wave one’s hands, if one is bound by straitjackets of the heart or mind. And it is to me the deepest consolation I know, for myself or for others.
Accepting that one doesn't have perfect understanding is a realistic thing.
Making the blanket statement that God is ineffable? I've plenty of Fs for that.
A bigt problem is that in Christianity¹ there is a very definite base of a solid, concrete path. Were it a more a more abstract religion, than the vagueness of not understanding would be more acceptable.
¹In general, most especially in the less universalist traditions.
Again, this is the way Christians present the bible. And if you don't believe the Omni bits, that would be a simple reply. 'God ain't perfect.'
You're forcing your expectations on the Bible.
Which, as I recall, you haven't read in its entirety. Your stance reminds me of (I think) a Peanuts cartoon in which (I think) Snoopy, when challenged on his knowledge of a book, says "I didn't read it: I read some of the reviews". The Bible is not a systematic theology intended to explain God to our individual and logical satisfaction. Granted there might be some Christians who think that way but I'd say they're in a minority, certainly they are on this forum.
The Bible was once memorably described on these boards as a collection of arguments about what God is like, and I quite like that description. I also believe that to be a feature (a divinely inspired one, even), and not a bug. Of course if you want a systematic theology you are going to be disappointed.
If one assumes, as you seem to, that "the Omni bits" are "what the Bible teaches" (although you've produced no evidence in support of this) the conclusion that such a God cannot possibly result in the world being the way it is is not the only inescapable logical conclusion. It might be yours, but it rests on your appraisal of what God should do given these capabilities and the state of the world. It fails to account for the possibility that his (or anyone else's) perspective might be different or indeed superior to yours.
The Bible is chock-full of stories of people having certain expectations of God and how he should act, these being upset, and (most importantly) how they behaved subsequently.
Saying "it is not for us to understand" is undoubtedly not a satisfactory substitute for sympathy when somebody is suffering, but there's nothing logically inconsistent about a creature being unable to understand all the thought process and intentions of a creator at all times or being less able to make sense of the world than that creator.
Making the blanket statement that God is ineffable? I've plenty of Fs for that.
A big problem is that in Christianity¹ there is a very definite base of a solid, concrete path. Were it a more a more abstract religion, than the vagueness of not understanding would be more acceptable.
¹In general, most especially in the less universalist traditions.
Well, I'm not sure I'd say that God is 'ineffable', exactly. More that He/She/It doesn't fit in our boxes, so the way one talks about God is different from, and only glancingly commensurate with, the way one talks about other things.
But anyway, you are, as you say, making a generalisation here, and I don't think it's particularly accurate. What one might call 'apophatic' or 'mystical' theology is a broad and deep river that runs the length of Christian history. The Desert Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite, huge swathes of the Orthodox tradition, St. John of the Cross, The Cloud of Unknowing ... the list goes on and on and on. On the contemporary scene, the World Community for Christian Meditation aims to continue that tradition, and American Franciscans like Ilia Delio and Richard Rohr have a broad mystical streak, as do the Cistercians who followed in Thomas Merton's wake.
Sure, there's also a large Christian tradition impatient of mystics. In general, reformed theology doesn't seem to have a lot of time for them, and American fundamentalism takes a dim view. But we shouldn't fall into the trap of letting them define the tradition. As though anything they disapprove of isn't 'real' Christianity.
If there is a God, his existence is not going to be determined by what benefits we derive from his existence, or how much good he is going to do us. That's not a god, that's a genie.
My conviction is that God exists and that he is a loving God. I can't prove that, but I find it makes sense, helps me make sense of life, and makes no less sense than other theories. To me that's a lot gained right there.
My understanding of God is that any attempt to relate to him in transactional terms ('what do I get out of this?'; 'is he worth following?') is about as doomed to failure as any non-business human relationship conducted on the same basis.
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion.
So if I want what I believe to be a logical position, all I have to do is state that it is. If that's not assertion then the word has no meaning. You don't get to do that. It's done all the time of course, and every time, it's a fallacy. "This isn't my belief, it's FACT!" is bullshit.
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion.
So if I want what I believe to be a logical position, all I have to do is state that it is. If that's not assertion then the word has no meaning. You don't get to do that. It's done all the time of course, and every time, it's a fallacy. "This isn't my belief, it's FACT!" is bullshit.
If that is what I were doing, you have a point.
The God that commands genocide, the God that condemns people for eating shellfish and condones rape is not a god that loves his creations. A God that can do anything but creates a world that allows what we do is not one that loves.
Go ahead and show me where the bible untwists that in any reasonable way.
And you are making assertions without proof when you say "this thing is the reals and this thing is the allegorical"
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion.
So if I want what I believe to be a logical position, all I have to do is state that it is. If that's not assertion then the word has no meaning. You don't get to do that. It's done all the time of course, and every time, it's a fallacy. "This isn't my belief, it's FACT!" is bullshit.
If that is what I were doing, you have a point.
The God that commands genocide, the God that condemns people for eating shellfish and condones rape is not a god that loves his creations. A God that can do anything but creates a world that allows what we do is not one that loves.
Go ahead and show me where the bible untwists that in any reasonable way.
Why?
And you are making assertions without proof when you say "this thing is the reals and this thing is the allegorical"
Absolutely no question. But here I was just following @Colin Smith.
No. I've freely admitted agnosticism is the only rationally defensible position. Atheism is as much a leap of faith as any theism.
I agree that agnosticism (and possibly non-theism) is more rational. I might say that atheism mightn't be more rational, but it is slightly more reasonable.
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion.
So if I want what I believe to be a logical position, all I have to do is state that it is. If that's not assertion then the word has no meaning. You don't get to do that. It's done all the time of course, and every time, it's a fallacy. "This isn't my belief, it's FACT!" is bullshit.
If that is what I were doing, you have a point.
The God that commands genocide, the God that condemns people for eating shellfish and condones rape is not a god that loves his creations. A God that can do anything but creates a world that allows what we do is not one that loves.
Go ahead and show me where the bible untwists that in any reasonable way.
Why?
You mean, "How." Since neither admits to having read the Bible, neither is willing to look at relevant texts in Kerygmania, and apparently you need to beam your understanding directly into their heads without the use of the very text this is all based on.
Though come to think of it, "Why?" is also a good question.
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion.
So if I want what I believe to be a logical position, all I have to do is state that it is. If that's not assertion then the word has no meaning. You don't get to do that. It's done all the time of course, and every time, it's a fallacy. "This isn't my belief, it's FACT!" is bullshit.
If that is what I were doing, you have a point.
The God that commands genocide, the God that condemns people for eating shellfish and condones rape is not a god that loves his creations. A God that can do anything but creates a world that allows what we do is not one that loves.
Go ahead and show me where the bible untwists that in any reasonable way.
Why?
You mean, "How." Since neither admits to having read the Bible, neither is willing to look at relevant texts in Kerygmania, and apparently you need to beam your understanding directly into their heads without the use of the very text this is all based on.
Though come to think of it, "Why?" is also a good question.
You have not read our replies if you think that either of us has said we have not read the bible.
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion.
So if I want what I believe to be a logical position, all I have to do is state that it is. If that's not assertion then the word has no meaning. You don't get to do that. It's done all the time of course, and every time, it's a fallacy. "This isn't my belief, it's FACT!" is bullshit.
If that is what I were doing, you have a point.
The God that commands genocide, the God that condemns people for eating shellfish and condones rape is not a god that loves his creations. A God that can do anything but creates a world that allows what we do is not one that loves.
Go ahead and show me where the bible untwists that in any reasonable way.
And you are making assertions without proof when you say "this thing is the reals and this thing is the allegorical"
I could see that as a criticism of certain types of evangelicalism.
Conservative Evangelical isn't the only flavour of Christianity.
Christians as a whole believe Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God not the law of Moses.
It's impossible to see Jesus condoning rape or genocide. He commanded his followers to love their enemies and told them there was no higher commandments than love of God and love of Neighbour and lived that out himself even forgiving those who were crucifying him
At least one of you has--Colin--and you continue to play so absolutely coy, that, concatenated with your obvious misunderstandings, much the same can be inferred.
Seriously, do you think the way to conduct a discussion is to avoid the evidence altogether? And to refuse to admit to whether you have even LOOKED AT the evidence?
You mean, "How." Since neither admits to having read the Bible, neither is willing to look at relevant texts in Kerygmania, and apparently you need to beam your understanding directly into their heads without the use of the very text this is all based on.
Though come to think of it, "Why?" is also a good question.
"admits to having read the Bible"? Why would I not admit it if I had? I haven't read it because the Bible is just not a significant part of modern English culture. I was raised in a non-religious household, have never been interested in following any faith, and over 59 years have attended less than ten religious services, four of which were funerals.
I have zero interest in gaining knowledge about the Bible because, and I would have thought this was patently obvious, the Bible is irrelevant to atheism.
At least one of you has--Colin--and you continue to play so absolutely coy, that, concatenated with your obvious misunderstandings, much the same can be inferred.
Seriously, do you think the way to conduct a discussion is to avoid the evidence altogether? And to refuse to admit to whether you have even LOOKED AT the evidence?
You have not read our replies if you think that either of us has said we have not read the bible.
Actually, I have said that I have not read the Bible. Or to be specific, I have read all of Revelation because I was attempting to write a play based on end-of-the-world stories and I started reading Genesis at one time but gave up after a few pages. Other than that, I have not read the Bible. Why would I?
I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
I’m sure there are. And such uninformed opinions, were they to go beyond “doesn’t sound like my kind of thing,” would typically be dismissed as worthless, and possibly indicative of prejudice.
At least one of you has--Colin--and you continue to play so absolutely coy, that, concatenated with your obvious misunderstandings, much the same can be inferred.
Seriously, do you think the way to conduct a discussion is to avoid the evidence altogether? And to refuse to admit to whether you have even LOOKED AT the evidence?
It's Trumpian.
I never wanted a discussion about the Old and New Testaments and I haven't the slightest interest in analysing the Bible.
@Colin Smith So... why are you posting on this thread? What do you have to contribute to a discussion about whether healing in the NT can be interpreted as sign of the eschatological coming of the Kingdom of God?
I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
I’m sure there are. And such uninformed opinions, were they to go beyond “doesn’t sound like my kind of thing,” would typically be dismissed as worthless, and possibly indicative of prejudice.
I have as much prejudice against the Bible as I have against any other mythographic text. Which is to say, none.
@Colin Smith So... why are you posting on this thread? What do you have to contribute to a discussion about whether healing in the NT can be interpreted as sign of the eschatological coming of the Kingdom of God?
Mousethief name-checked me.
And I think eschatology is a steaming pile of nonsense.
I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
I’m sure there are. And such uninformed opinions, were they to go beyond “doesn’t sound like my kind of thing,” would typically be dismissed as worthless, and possibly indicative of prejudice.
I have as much prejudice against the Bible as I have against any other mythographic text. Which is to say, none.
I didn’t say you had any prejudice. I said such uninformed opinions would typically be dismissed as worthless, and as possibly indicative of prejudice.
@Colin Smith So... why are you posting on this thread? What do you have to contribute to a discussion about whether healing in the NT can be interpreted as sign of the eschatological coming of the Kingdom of God?
Mousethief name-checked me.
That's not an answer to "why are you posting on this thread." I don't think I name-checked you into the thread. You were already here.,
What's the real reason you're spewing forth opinions on something you claim to have no interest in?
Comments
Maybe not, but it does mean his love is meaningless.
Not being able to perceive a person's love does not mean their love is meaningless, all the more so when that person is beyond orders of magnitude higher than us since they are the creator and not the creature.
It might mean we don't feel it tangibly at all times, but again this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the book of Job.
We have been reminded that you are under no obligation to reveal your own beliefs, but this kind of mangled garbage on the heels of comments about "basic logic" does not commend your belief system to me, whatever it may be.
It does to me. What meaning can I derive from something I can’t perceive, that has no effect on me, and that makes no difference to my life?
If the latter, then it's certainly not reasonable to expect you to derive meaningfulness from the concept of a loving God. But even that doesn't mean you might not come to do so later. What's to lose?
Well, I’m with @Eutychus on a lot of things, but one of them is the general inconsistency in the thread of your arguments. First you state that God, granted certain hypothetical conditions, is a bastard; then you claim it’s an assertion no-one has refuted; then you state that it’s not an assertion; then you’re not accusing anyone of anything. It may be true, as you state upthread, that one’s beliefs are irrelevant to one’s arguments. But if they’re sufficiently amorphous that they allow simple contradiction of whatever the last post in the thread was, regardless of coherence ...
However, against my own better judgement: if indeed all you have been doing is stating the logical Problem of Evil, in those terms I suppose all I’m saying is that if the Os of omniscience and omnipotence are granted, it’s difficult to move from these to a denial of omnibenevolence. Perhaps that’s an academic point,
More important, I think, is to recognise that there are actually four points of potential flex here: the Os, and one’s own understanding of reality - for whatever the nature of God, surely we are not omniscient. And this is what I strive to do: to understand the love and benevolence of God, opaque to me though it is, through prayer and meditation.
In your view, of course, this is mere ‘handwaving’. But one cannot even wave one’s hands, if one is bound by straitjackets of the heart or mind. And it is to me the deepest consolation I know, for myself or for others.
God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and still result in the world we have. That is a logical position, not an assertion. And no one has refuted it. I do not think it is academic if one is a believer. Every religion that I have put any time into understanding has inconsistencies and contradictions. "It is not for us to understand" is insufficient, IMO. The problems inherent in the contradictions are part of the reason people lose their faith. Accepting that one doesn't have perfect understanding is a realistic thing.
Making the blanket statement that God is ineffable? I've plenty of Fs for that.
A bigt problem is that in Christianity¹ there is a very definite base of a solid, concrete path. Were it a more a more abstract religion, than the vagueness of not understanding would be more acceptable.
¹In general, most especially in the less universalist traditions.
Which, as I recall, you haven't read in its entirety. Your stance reminds me of (I think) a Peanuts cartoon in which (I think) Snoopy, when challenged on his knowledge of a book, says "I didn't read it: I read some of the reviews". The Bible is not a systematic theology intended to explain God to our individual and logical satisfaction. Granted there might be some Christians who think that way but I'd say they're in a minority, certainly they are on this forum.
The Bible was once memorably described on these boards as a collection of arguments about what God is like, and I quite like that description. I also believe that to be a feature (a divinely inspired one, even), and not a bug. Of course if you want a systematic theology you are going to be disappointed.
If one assumes, as you seem to, that "the Omni bits" are "what the Bible teaches" (although you've produced no evidence in support of this) the conclusion that such a God cannot possibly result in the world being the way it is is not the only inescapable logical conclusion. It might be yours, but it rests on your appraisal of what God should do given these capabilities and the state of the world. It fails to account for the possibility that his (or anyone else's) perspective might be different or indeed superior to yours.
The Bible is chock-full of stories of people having certain expectations of God and how he should act, these being upset, and (most importantly) how they behaved subsequently.
Saying "it is not for us to understand" is undoubtedly not a satisfactory substitute for sympathy when somebody is suffering, but there's nothing logically inconsistent about a creature being unable to understand all the thought process and intentions of a creator at all times or being less able to make sense of the world than that creator.
Well, I'm not sure I'd say that God is 'ineffable', exactly. More that He/She/It doesn't fit in our boxes, so the way one talks about God is different from, and only glancingly commensurate with, the way one talks about other things.
But anyway, you are, as you say, making a generalisation here, and I don't think it's particularly accurate. What one might call 'apophatic' or 'mystical' theology is a broad and deep river that runs the length of Christian history. The Desert Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite, huge swathes of the Orthodox tradition, St. John of the Cross, The Cloud of Unknowing ... the list goes on and on and on. On the contemporary scene, the World Community for Christian Meditation aims to continue that tradition, and American Franciscans like Ilia Delio and Richard Rohr have a broad mystical streak, as do the Cistercians who followed in Thomas Merton's wake.
Sure, there's also a large Christian tradition impatient of mystics. In general, reformed theology doesn't seem to have a lot of time for them, and American fundamentalism takes a dim view. But we shouldn't fall into the trap of letting them define the tradition. As though anything they disapprove of isn't 'real' Christianity.
A better question might be what's to gain? What good is a god who doesn't do anything?
My conviction is that God exists and that he is a loving God. I can't prove that, but I find it makes sense, helps me make sense of life, and makes no less sense than other theories. To me that's a lot gained right there.
Perhaps not, but whether he's worth following is.
So if I want what I believe to be a logical position, all I have to do is state that it is. If that's not assertion then the word has no meaning. You don't get to do that. It's done all the time of course, and every time, it's a fallacy. "This isn't my belief, it's FACT!" is bullshit.
Pretty much.
The God that commands genocide, the God that condemns people for eating shellfish and condones rape is not a god that loves his creations. A God that can do anything but creates a world that allows what we do is not one that loves.
Go ahead and show me where the bible untwists that in any reasonable way.
And you are making assertions without proof when you say "this thing is the reals and this thing is the allegorical"
Why?
Absolutely no question. But here I was just following @Colin Smith.
Claiming God exists is an assertion without proof.
Claiming there is no God is an assertion without proof.
Some people claim there's evidence for both assertions but no one has come up with any proof.
Or is that a novel idea?
No. I've freely admitted agnosticism is the only rationally defensible position. Atheism is as much a leap of faith as any theism.
You mean, "How." Since neither admits to having read the Bible, neither is willing to look at relevant texts in Kerygmania, and apparently you need to beam your understanding directly into their heads without the use of the very text this is all based on.
Though come to think of it, "Why?" is also a good question.
I could see that as a criticism of certain types of evangelicalism.
Conservative Evangelical isn't the only flavour of Christianity.
Christians as a whole believe Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God not the law of Moses.
It's impossible to see Jesus condoning rape or genocide. He commanded his followers to love their enemies and told them there was no higher commandments than love of God and love of Neighbour and lived that out himself even forgiving those who were crucifying him
Seriously, do you think the way to conduct a discussion is to avoid the evidence altogether? And to refuse to admit to whether you have even LOOKED AT the evidence?
It's Trumpian.
"admits to having read the Bible"? Why would I not admit it if I had? I haven't read it because the Bible is just not a significant part of modern English culture. I was raised in a non-religious household, have never been interested in following any faith, and over 59 years have attended less than ten religious services, four of which were funerals.
I have zero interest in gaining knowledge about the Bible because, and I would have thought this was patently obvious, the Bible is irrelevant to atheism.
What? I don't know what point you're making.
The last time I challenged you on this, you admitted to not having read the Bible in its entirety. Has that changed?
Actually, I have said that I have not read the Bible. Or to be specific, I have read all of Revelation because I was attempting to write a play based on end-of-the-world stories and I started reading Genesis at one time but gave up after a few pages. Other than that, I have not read the Bible. Why would I?
I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
[x-post]
I never wanted a discussion about the Old and New Testaments and I haven't the slightest interest in analysing the Bible.
I have as much prejudice against the Bible as I have against any other mythographic text. Which is to say, none.
Mousethief name-checked me.
And I think eschatology is a steaming pile of nonsense.
That's not an answer to "why are you posting on this thread." I don't think I name-checked you into the thread. You were already here.,
What's the real reason you're spewing forth opinions on something you claim to have no interest in?