You know Kathy, we’ve been fairly blunt with you today. Flippant, too. And it’s tough when people talk to/about you that way. I’m sorry for that.
If we could cut through all the rhetoric for a second, I’d like to commiserate with you. A little over 4 years ago, I was a very dedicated Christian. I had some doubts, but they weren’t about the Christian faith, just my understanding of it.
I felt like there were problems in my beliefs about the gospel. I believed in a literal Hell, and I believed a lot of people would be going there. But I had a very hard time squaring that with a loving God. I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing. I didn’t think such people deserved Hell. In fact, like Paul, I often thought that if God would accept it, I’d gladly go to Hell myself, if it would save my friends and family. And if everyone else could be added into that deal too, even better.
So if I felt that way, could I be more compassionate than God? Of course not. But I had a very hard time finding anything in the Bible that backed up an idea that most people, regardless of creed or belief would be saved.
I didn’t give up though. I knew about Universalists, so I decided to read up on their reasons for thinking everyone went to Heaven. It sounded good, but I just wasn’t convinced by their arguments. I just didn’t see the Bible teaching such a doctrine, and I still believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God.
I was in a state of flux.
And that’s the position I was in when I first ran across articles that pointed out flaws in the Bible. I was shocked by what the articles said, but since I didn’t have any answers against them at the moment, I got busy with research. I didn’t even comment on the articles — I just went to work. It wasn’t about winning any arguments; it was simply a search for answers.
I think that frame of mind I was in made all the difference for me. Deep down, I was already struggling. The doctrines I had long believed in, and even taught to others, didn’t fit together in my mind as well as they once had.
That’s probably the difference between you and me. I get the feeling that you question nothing about your faith. Not trying to put you down about that; just making an observation.
For me, discovering that the Bible was not the perfect book I had always thought it to be, and finding out that some of these church leaders I had always admired knew of these problems but never spoke of them, helped me make sense of a lot of things. It took time, and it wasn’t easy to come to the realizations, but everything finally fell into place for me when I realized Christianity was just another religion. For the first time, I finally understood the sentiment of that line from “Amazing Grace,” I once was blind, but now I see…
I don’t know if that’s helpful to you at all. Maybe one day it will be. Maybe one day, something will make you ask a few questions, and you’ll think back to those non- believers who were so insistent that Christianity was certainly not the only way. If that day comes, I hope you’ll find this exchange helpful and realize you’re not alone.
Finding Truth 
“Nevertheless, I find your posts to be far more off the mark than theirs may or may not be. I suspect I’m not alone in this assessment.”
Rata you are fooling no one . the reason you find that for yourself is because you agree with them and thats the same for not being alone in that “assessment”. What a silly point and a shocker – on an atheist blog the assessment is in the atheists favor.
Great point there my man
Theres no amount of twisting and spinning you can do to save your logic. the foam at the mouth and spittle brothers do all kinds of name calling, virtriol and hate and you are not calling for their banning because you are sympathetic and share their beliefs
the end (on that issue)
“By constrast, a theist claiming revelation has more work to do. You’re failing at your task, and setting a poor example of behavior.”
To whom? this is your illusion. Most of the world has already concluded for theism so the atheist has more work to do. Plus do at least try and keep your story straight. Did you forget that according to you I am not attempting dialogue so why would it be I am failing at a task of convincing anyone when I am not trying to?
Rhetoric will always catch you at your game
LikeLike
Not Ark here (I’m the GOOD one!), but all I’ve ever asked for is evidence that your god exists, and no one has yet given me any.
LikeLike
Carmen, you said:
“Kathy –
I am appalled and dismayed by the cavalier response you gave to that HORRID video. That woman was ‘speaking the truth’!??? Yes, indeed, it WAS too intense for children of that age. . . . . ANY age. I’ll bet that the rest of the people commenting on this thread (perhaps even TBlacksman) recognize what that tirade really was/is. Mental/emotional abuse of children.”
I was wondering if my comment about the video was going to get any response.. I certainly expected it. It’s too easy to not use as an argument against God. Children crying.. “tormented” by an “evil” Christian woman’s desire to scare them into belief.
First, I’m not defending that woman.. based on what I watched, I question her true motives. What I do defend are her words. It’s very true that satan goes after children. re: liberal indoctrination in schools as an excellent example. And there is NOTHING wrong with encouraging children to not say and do sinful harmful things. Basically that is all this woman was addressing. Which makes me question WHY these children were crying.. what exactly did she say to cause them to get that upset?? I question the truth of that video.. I suspect that there was some anti Christian “editing” going on. It’s just more atheist propaganda.. which I’m sure Ron and all atheists know right where to go to find it.
“That woman’s face should be posted all over social media, and labelled as an abuser – and you defend her as she is, “encouraging children to not talk dirty”!??? I’d also like to know what you consider talking dirty. (using swear words? speaking of imaginary wizards? – what??)”
I’m inclined to agree.. I don’t like her style either.. if those children are truly crying due to her words and tone, she’s not doing it right. Atheists are always going to find people like her.. people who are not truly about doing Jesus’ will. Jesus never taught to scare children into belief.. there is no scripture that supports that.
“dirty talk”? It’s pretty obvious.. yes, swear words and hurtful words.. and talk that leads to sinful thoughts and desires. If grown ups don’t understand what “dirty talk” entails, that shows a need for people to explain it to children.. who actually have an excuse for not knowing.
“I shudder to think that there are children this very day who are listening to some nutbar like that woman and internalizing the message that they are not worthy.”
I must have missed that part.. what exactly did she say? The Bible teaches that we are so worthy that God actually died for us.
“If that’s the kind of casual disregard you have for children’s feelings – in defence of the Christian god – than you really do need to take a closer look at your convictions.”
You aren’t applying objectivity. You obviously are looking for a way to make me appear wrong. My first words about the video agreed that it was too intense for children…. based on how upset they were.. but again, I don’t know what she said that was wrong… it might have just been her approach.
“OH, and by the way. Not one single thing you have said establishes that the christian god is responsible for creation, any more than allah, the muslim god. (I believe there are others, as well?) You’ll need to dig a little deeper.”
Sorry but you are wrong. I’ve made lots of statements that support the God of the Bible being our Creator. allah or any other god has no evidence by comparison.
LikeLike
Mike, you said to Carmen:
“Meanwhile don’t think we don’t see through the outrage and bluster about child abuse. I am so thankful that atheists are in the minority because its quite clear and some of you have said as much – you would LOVE to violate our freedom of religion on the pretense of alleged child abuse. ”
This is true of liberals in general.. they are looking for ways to restrain our first amendment rights, because they know they cannot win the debates…so it’s all they have left to do to control the beliefs of the masses. I just learned of an interesting statistic.. the abortion rate in New Zealand is at it’s lowest in the last 20 years.. and an ad campaign is believed to be a major reason why… because it calls abortion what it is.. murder. Liberals want to take away our right to call it murder.. claiming it’s “hate speech”.. just another example of how liberals hate truth and how their lies are so destructive.
And it’s funny how those who are supposedly so concerned for children, ALSO support abortion “rights”.. it makes absolutely no sense.
LikeLike
RE: “I’ve made lots of statements that support the God of the Bible being our Creator.” – I sincerely hope, Kathy, that you don’t consider your statements any form of evidence – they’re opinions, nothing more.
“talk that leads to sinful thoughts and desires” – According to what? Your little Bible, or the opinions of the real world?
LikeLike
The god of the bible does not exist. Period. As to whether there is some kind of supernatural entity that played a role in the creation of the universe? Doubtful, but essentially unknown because there simply is NO tangible proof.
LikeLike
RE: “This is true of liberals in general.. they are looking for ways to restrain our first amendment rights, because they know they cannot win the debates”
The First Amendment, in the event you are as unfamiliar with the US Constitution, as I have found you to be on most other matters, separates government from religion. When you and your theists have removed your Ten Commandments from our Public Courthouses, your prayers from our government convocations, your creationism from our public schools, and declined government financial assistance, via vouchers, to fund your private religious school tuitions, then come and talk to us about how we are usurping your First Amendment rights.
LikeLike
Kathy, how many Muslims are there in the world? I believe it ‘s the fastest-growing religion. .. perhaps all those people know of all sorts of evidence (as opposed to opinions) for the ‘fact’ of allah being the creator, as well. You’re on shifting sand, here.
Another thing you should know – I’m a public school teacher. I don’t need to try and make you LOOK wrong. You are.
LikeLike
Arch, you said:
“I asked who created your god, you answered with my own question, as to why anyone NEEDS to know the answer to that, then defeated your own response by asking what need had to do with anything, which brings us back to square one:
“And please explain how ‘NEED has ANY bearing on TRUTH.”
So how about explaining what created him?” ”
I answered with YOUR question to point out YOUR hypocrisy/ bias. When it’s a question that supports your argument, you want to know the answer, but if it doesn’t, then you ask “why do we ‘need’ an answer?”..
Of course I’ve wondered about where God came from.. according to the Bible, He always is/ was. And yes, that is very hard to grasp based on the logic we seem to be bound by.
“Arch, here’s a question I really want an answer to.. please explain HOW scientific knowledge disproves a Creator.
you: I could ask the same question of unicorns or leprechauns, or a teacup orbiting Mars. It’s impossible to disprove a negative – I can ask you to disprove any number of things that don’t exist, and you can’t, which is why, when someone makes a claim that something DOES exist, we expect proof that it does, THAT, if it exists, can be proven.”
Yep, you can certainly ask that question about unicorns or teacups in orbit.. but.. WHY?? What evidence are you working with to ask about these “possible” answers??
Here is where we go back to my 50/50 odds.. when it’s between 2 choices, either we are an accident or we are created with a Creator, it’s either one or the other.. so my question is valid.. HOW does science disprove a Creator?? Again, this IS what yours and Tyson’s statements are claiming! (no “irritation” with that exclamation mark.. just an emphasis to my point.. thanks)..
““So, since you don’t understand His motives or His emotions, that means you get a ‘pass’ and don’t have to believe in Him or worship Him?”
you: No, Kathy, it means I don’t have to believe in him/her/it until someone provides me with irrefutable evidence that he/she/it exists, and it would appear you’re getting irritable again – ”
You have evidence Arch.. it’s all around you.. it’s EXISTENCE.. of us and animals, plants, the planet, the universe.. you cannot “refute” this. YOU have ZERO evidence to prove that existence is not due to a Supreme Being. And again, a Supreme Being is the MOST reasonable explanation. If you are going to disagree again.. please give ANOTHER more “reasonable” explanation.. what you’ve FAILED to do over and over so far upon request.
And then we have the BIBLE.. ALSO very compelling evidence for God’s existence.
But, I assume by “irrefutable” you mean “empirical” evidence of God’s existence.. your stance is that you will NOT believe in God UNTIL He proves Himself to you with empirical evidence.
That’s FINE.. God gave you free will to make that demand. You can demand that all day long.. all your life.. good luck with that though.
““I never said this.. anywhere..”
Yes, you did, Kathy – “That’s what the universe was meant for.. to help man see how great God is..” Do you sometimes get so irritated that others don’t see things your way, that you forget what you said?”
Sigh, you made an incorrect assumption. IF you had applied the correct CONTEXT, you’d know that is not what I meant.. God is trying to HELP us see the truth by displaying His power.. only a liberal/ atheist would misinterpret that to mean what you claimed. .. pure lack of objectivity… pure pride and ego. You don’t like how powerful God is.. it intimidates you.. you feel like He’s “bragging”.. awe.. poor Arch.. poor Nate. poor Ark and William and Ruth and Nan and Carmen and Kc and Ron…. poor poor atheists and liberals.. God is such a bully!
LikeLike
And Arch, it appears my questions, that I stated that I really would like answered, still haven’t been answered..
How does science disprove God?
And what does “need” have to do with actual TRUTH??
LikeLike
“either we are an accident or we are created with a Creator, it’s either one or the other.” – OR, there are any number of explanations that we simply haven’t considered yet. It’s far from 50/50, more like 1/∞.
“You have evidence Arch.. it’s all around you.. it’s EXISTENCE.. of us and animals, plants, the planet, the universe.. you cannot “refute” this. YOU have ZERO evidence to prove that existence is not due to a Supreme Being.” – and you have zero evidence to prove that it is.
“then we have the BIBLE.. ALSO very compelling evidence for God’s existence.” – The Bible is only compelling evidence that 3000 years ago, Hebrews could write.
“poor Arch.. poor Nate. poor Ark and William and Ruth and Nan and Carmen and Kc and Ron…. poor poor atheists and liberals” – poor Kathy —
LikeLike
@william: I do agree with you to an extent. Certainly, the bible uses understandable terms as you say. I think part of the problem is that you are viewing mercy and wrath as incompatible. But, why can’t love be expressed as either mercy or wrath given particular circumstances?
Also, you said: “The bible says that god is just, yet it shows him punishing certain people that did no wrong (david’s baby with bathsheba – sure it punished david as well, but. . .)”
The scripture never says God was punishing their child; instead it is clear that the child would die because of David’s sins of adultery and killing Uriah. Of course if a human tried to act like God as a divine judge, they would be wrong. But, what about God? Everyone in human history has died, but are we all being punished by God? No, here’s a theodicy: God gives life and has the right to take it back.
But, I don’t think the problem of evil is really what bothers you rather than the bible appearing to be manmade. Is that correct? I mean I certainly understand your concern here.
LikeLike
“How does science disprove God?” – I DID answer that:
It’s impossible to disprove a negative – I can ask you to disprove any number of things that don’t exist, and you can’t, which is why, when someone makes a claim that something DOES exist, we expect proof that it does, THAT, if it exists, can be proven.
Still waiting for you to prove your god exists.
“And what does “need” have to do with actual TRUTH??” – I’m really not clear as to why you are asking this. My original question was: “Why would a supreme being NEED anyone to see how great he is?” I’m still waiting for an answer to that. I’m good at a number of things, and I feel no need to say, “Look at me everyone, look at all of the wonderful things I can do.” If I, a mere human, have no such needs, why would a god who should at least, be superior to me? He (according to Exodus) hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he could bring plagues on Egypt, including killing all of the first-born children of Egypt, just so he could show his power, whereas if he hadn’t robbed Pharaoh of his free will, and hardened his heart (by magic), that might all have been avoided – self-promotion, pure and simple!
I’m not saying that ANY of this really happened, I’m just saying why would anyone want to worship such an entity if indeed he did exist.
LikeLike
Arch said:
““How does science disprove God?” – I DID answer that:
It’s impossible to disprove a negative –”
Then WHAT did you mean by this:
“The more knowledge we gain by learning about the universe, the smaller and smaller and smaller the need becomes for your “god of the gaps.”
“God is an ever-decreasing pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.”
~~ astrophysist, Neill Degrasse Tyson ~~
HOW does knowledge disprove or “argue” against the existence of God?
And what does “need” have to do with the truth of God’s existence??
LikeLike
Graham, you said:
” Taking out that hurdle, what evidence do you have that that Creator is the God of the Bible? Other than its own claims, what do you have to back that assumption up? ”
All of the religions have only their own claims. All we can do is test those claims to see
if they are based on truth. The Bible passes the test. It provides lots of information that could “fail” the test if outside historical records dispute it… or by determining if prophecies have come true.. by checking consistency of doctrine throughout the Bible.. there are lots of ways to disprove the Bible, but that hasn’t been done. And if you argue that Islam hasn’t been disproven either, you take into consideration that it’s based on one man’s word.. as opposed to many different testimonies in the Bible.. with one man, it’s very easy to perpetuate a lie.
When you weigh all the evidence, it’s Christianity that has the credentials.. far exceeding any other religion.
LikeLike
“HOW does knowledge disprove or ‘argue’ against the existence of God?” – Simple, it removes the knowledge gaps that you people try to cram your god into, thus making it ever more difficult to even BEGIN to supply even the slightest modicum of possibility that he/she/it might exist.
“And what does ‘need’ have to do with the truth of God’s existence??” – good question, why do you NEED to believe in one?
LikeLike
But Kathy, this is where you’re simply wrong. The Bible does not pass those tests. Why else do you think there are so many “liberal” Christians these days? Most of them have come to terms with the fact that the Bible has flaws. The information is easy to come by, too. In fact, several of us here have pointed you to resources that would help you learn more about them.
Also, since you keep asking why science points toward there being no creator, let me try to answer it this way:
First, I don’t think your 50/50 point is accurate. You’ve said that there’s either a creator, or we’re an accident. I don’t think that’s an accurate way of stating it. There’s the third possibility that given natural law, it’s a statistical possibility, maybe even likelihood, that us or something like us would eventually evolve. It’s sort of like deaths being caused by a tornado. There are many places in the world where a tornado will not harm anyone. But if a tornado runs through a populated area, some people will likely die. That doesn’t mean some intelligent being made the tornado kill people, but it also wouldn’t be quite right to refer to it as an accident. It’s just something that’s going to happen in a world that has both tornadoes and people.
Back to the original point, it’s true that science can not disprove God, or even a creator of some kind. However, as we’ve learned more about nature, we find that everything (so far) operates via natural processes. So many things about nature used to be described by supernatural forces: disease, lightning, the sun, the moon, eclipses, drought, flood, etc. But every one of those has been found to operate naturally. Seeing that trend, we atheists think it’s likely that everything has a natural explanation, even if we don’t always know what that explanation is. We certainly don’t find it reasonable to say that a supernatural entity caused everything, because the supernatural hasn’t been shown to even exist.
I know that’s not how you see things, but I hope it at least explains why we feel science points away from a deity.
LikeLike
@Brandon (anaivethinker)
I thought your first comment was very good and quite interesting. Thanks for chiming in with it — this is the kind of thing that I enjoy discussing.
I’ll say up front that the kind of Christianity you’re espousing is something that I don’t have much problem with. It’s a rational, moderate approach to religion that remains respectful of alternate views. I think that’s the main thing we should all be shooting for, regardless of our various worldviews. I don’t always meet that goal, but it is the one I shoot for.
Anyway, when I was a Christian, I thought a lot about the perspective you’re advocating. You’re right that Romans 2 says the Gentiles were a “law unto themselves” when they lived morally, even though they didn’t have the law.
I took some comfort from passages like that, but I felt like other parts of the Bible put limitations on them. In Acts 17:30, Paul talks about those times of ignorance, when the Gentiles did not know him, and he says that they’re over. God now requires repentance. Heb 11:6 says that it’s impossible to please God unless one has faith in him.
I also thought about the directive for Christians to spread the gospel. It seemed to me that if people could be saved without it by living morally, wouldn’t it decrease their chances of being saved if the gospel was presented to them? What if they weren’t convinced? Even if they lived morally, that would no longer be enough for them.
And if God could save people without their ever having been exposed to the gospel, why not just do that for everyone? Why did Christianity ever need to be turned into a religion that must be accepted for people to be saved?
These are some of the questions that troubled me as I tried to work out what salvation meant and who would receive it. Are those things you’ve thought about as well?
Thanks again for the comment.
LikeLike
Nate – Brandon and I have beaucoup issues from earlier, so I’m staying out of any discussions between the two of you, as it is obvious you’re attempting to establish a dialogue – suffice to say, that without the resurrection of Yeshua, Brandon’s entire house of cards topples.
LikeLike
“However, as we’ve learned more about nature, we find that everything (so far) operates via natural processes.”
How do laws of nature operate by natural processes Nate? What PROCESS is involved with them? As far as we can tell science has taught us that the laws are just brute fact NOT operating by natural processes. So essentially all we know is how the lego blocks fit together. We have no natural process for the blocks/laws themselves fitting together – they just do
“So many things about nature used to be described by supernatural forces: disease, lightning, the sun, the moon, eclipses, drought, flood, etc. But every one of those has been found to operate naturally.”
Which ones? this is somewhat of an atheist myth. I don’t see much people pre 1800s claiming that rain was a miracle or the moon appearing was a supernatural feat. They thought pretty much what we do today that they operate by law. Mind you they would have said God’s law but given that science despite your claims really has no explanation for any law of nature they have not been proven to be wrong as you erroneously allege. Even biblically a distinction is made between what a miracle is and the sun rising in the morning. Like I said the claim that everything was deemed miraculous or supernatural before science came along is an atheist myth.
“Seeing that trend, we atheists think it’s likely that everything has a natural explanation”
Thats actually quite impossible. You (like many atheists) have just not thought it through. everything cannot have an explanation much less a natural explanation. Every “explanation” is actually dependent on a piece of reality that too must have an explanation and that too must be dependent on something else that has an explanation – the buck MUST sop somewhere and it you say no then you are still at the same place because infinite regress means there is no explanation anyway. Infinite means no end.
“even if we don’t always know what that explanation is. We certainly don’t find it reasonable to say that a supernatural entity caused everything, because the supernatural hasn’t been shown to even exist.”
the supernatural is actually inescapable Nate. You scoffed at that the last time I said it but you didn’t apply yourself to to the logic behind it. If you even have an infinite regress of explanations it means that there is no explanation because thats what you are left with with infinite past – never ending past.
In a sense you are right to put together the idea of explanations and the supernatural because you realize that things without explanation ARE considered supernatural and by that I mean not that we don’t know the explanation but that there is actually no explanation.
At this point in this kind of discussion atheists usually throw up their hands and say -“well we just don’t know yet is all” but the problem is – thats a lie – we do know the basics. We know there are only two options
explanation and causes must have a terminus
or
They go on endlessly and therefore there is no ultimate natural explanation for anything
Those are the only two options that SCIENCE and logic give us. The reason atheist immediately say “well we don’t know” is because the ONLY two possible answer BOTH lead to an answer they don’t like
and that is that something happening for no natural reason at all is inevitable and inescapable.
LikeLike
Here’s a few of the questions that I asked you on the last thread:
1) how many religions have you rally researched, and have you done so fairly?
I don’t know what you mean by “fairly” but I am aware of the basic beliefs of the major religions.. it’s enough to see that they don’t compare with Christianity.
2) if you researched other religions, were you trying to prove them right, as you do the bible, or were you trying to find their errors?
You mean, was I applying objectivity? Since I have no desire to adhere to a false religion or dismiss truth, I do believe I’ve applied objectivity.
3) what evidences lend credit to the bible, that also do not take credit from it? (history, archaeology, science – all discredit the bible as much as it may credit it, and many other religions claim the same, so how is the bible better, how do the claims in the bible trump the claims of other religions?).
William, I don’t know of any evidence that disproves the Bible.
4) Have you read these passages?
John: 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14, 31, 42 (before passover)
Mark: 14:12 (passover)
Matthew: 26:17 (passover)
Luke: 22:7 (passover)
after reading these, never mind telling me which day he was crucified on, just tell me whether or not you can at least understand where some people would be confused by this.
Can you tell me what the contradiction is you are referring to?
And yes, I’ve already acknowledged that there are things in the Bible that APPEAR to be contradictions.. until further research is done to give possible explanations.
LikeLike
RE: “causes must have a terminus” – Perhaps we will finally learn what that terminus is, as soon as you reveal to us who created your god.
LikeLike
“All we can do is test those claims to see
if they are based on truth. The Bible passes the test. It provides lots of information that could “fail” the test if outside historical records dispute it… or by determining if prophecies have come true.. by checking consistency of doctrine throughout the Bible..”
But its all rather pointless to this crew though Kathy. Look at what happened when I pretty much debunked Nate’s statement that there were no fulfilled prophecies in the bible by pointing to Israel being a nation again. The honest approach would be to say okay that is one even if they said that is not enough
Did we get that honest approach? No we had flat out denial in the face of obvious fact.Ruth posted some link to some foolishness about Israel not being the kind of nations its supposed to be (even though we both know its not supposed to be a certain kind of Israel until Messiah returns)and what ensued was all but denying that Israel was a nation
I mean Its widely attested to prophecy which again they could have said okay true enough but thats not enough for us. Instead they went to the twist the facts play to try and avoid the truth. The other game being played as am sure you have noticed is the you don’t have any evidence game by which they mean any evidence that they do not accept is thereby non existent on their say so. Sometimes they do nothing but link to a skeptic site and say here we have presented evidence but if you should link to a theist’s site well that is disallowed.
Its all a big game. You’d have to be brain dead to think that ark or art or William or any of the others including Nate have any desire whatsoever to hear you out for anything but denial
LikeLike
“RE: “causes must have a terminus” – Perhaps we will finally learn what that terminus is, as soon as you reveal to us who created your god.”
the part you quoted must have went straight over you head like so much other things
LikeLike
“And yes, I’ve already acknowledged that there are things in the Bible that APPEAR to be contradictions.. until further research is done to give possible explanations.”
Kathy he is referring to what is explained here
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/passovertime.php
He asked me the same question and I gave him that link and then he weakly claimed that I should not have given him a link but explained it in my own words. just another game being played
LikeLike