Syllabus: humans are by nature all opportunistic; the concept of any nature of God has been vanquished by 20^th century physics, namely the special theory of relativity, the chaos theory, and the Big Bang theory in global relativity theoretics. So many people going on and on about such exact physical sciences, so many educators droning on in a priori presumption such theories are perfect, and thus such global impact on cultures having been made, face it…only a simpleton believes in God, any faith, any spirituality; handcuff, eradicate, or regulate spiritualists to protect dumb people from predators and rabble-rousers competing with more aggressive opportunistic competitors. Being good requires simply choice and measuring only by the needs or edicts of the day since a lifetime is all there is.

 Ontology-Based Metaphysical Reflection Upon Physics Of Syllabus

 The referenced physics theories certainly are relied upon by many atheists; at the same time, such theories support a certain Protestant and other religious modern concept known as noninterventionist strategy…i.e., God only created everything but ever-after has refrained from any special acts or miracles, yet God concurrently acts at particular moments without violating the laws of nature.

The blatant circular logic of noninterventionist strategy seems plain: it is senseless to say God stays out completely yet somehow gets a message(s) through to some people. As such strategy seems more a purely comparative religious cloy against the Catholic and similar faiths believing in miracles, I abandon further consideration of it except to note it supports a notion of human opportunism. 

The main points of relevant physics appear to be:

First, the special theory of relativity: measurements of distance and time vary from different perspectives upon the observer’s relative motion. Proponents of this block theory of the universe deny the existence of God’s eternal “NOW”, questioning the nature of Divine eternity and creaturely temporality.

As a stand-alone genre of educational and book-selling attack on the idea God is constantly “tuning in” on the world, the theory of relativity where used in such attack weakens due to fact we don’t know HOW God watches (or if God has human distance limitations); to “explain” God’s lack of viewership interest under Einstein’s theory, decades later physics pioneers like Edward Lorenz evolved the second relevant theory…the chaos theory of determinism.

Chaos theory basically sets forth that without need of any God, any absolutely precise input will yield an absolutely precise output most of the time, except for occasional deterministic chaos giving rise to random behavior; where a novelty emerges it has to be a re-arrangement of something commonly existent or it will be so unstable/unsuited it can’t persist…unless a decoherence effect causes it to continue indefinitely, decoherence remains incalculable, or both.

One observes therein an openness: the future isn’t a random lottery, but rather causal principles involved are more than exchanges of energy between constituents; causation is due to differing patterns of dynamical behavior or of expressions of information. No physics makes it difficult to believe that God interacts with the unfolding history of creation through inputs of active information.

Physicists ran from Einstein to Lorenz for an absolute door closure upon or at least scientifically highly implausible perception of God, but haven’t shown it there; maybe the third and final relevant theory, the Big Bang theory, will provide the ultimate smackdown of a mere myth.

The Big Bang theory says our universe created itself from the nexus of another universe, thus no God created it nor by extrapolation anything in it. 

This one’s too easy to rebut: since physics insists no matter can ab initio generate itself, where then did the very first-of-all universes come from, especially since a vacuum produces nothing? Well, physics is pretty quiet there, meaning something in transcendence of our physics is the day one initiator of our realm and everything ever in it or any predecessor universe(s). 

Ontologically Metaphysical Opinion On Human Nature Per Syllabus  

From archaic Greek and Mycenaean society (1400-700 BC) through philosophers like Hesiod (c. 700 BC), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics; from Hebrew Deuteronomy 15:7-10 to Islamic Qur’an 17^th surah lines 23-30 to physical forms of Hindu karman, and beyond, in such people and texts charity, mercy, and hospitality reflect a diverse and eternal human perspective that what we call “good” is part of a Creator’s essence of which all souls are a part. 

Forever and even today, many in the world insist that no God(s) or universal power higher than man exists, thus the most ruthless must maul, deceive, or otherwise prevail against the vast weaker population, which themselves could be just as ruthless as others but for laziness, fear of suppression, or both; these kind of people insist no God exists based more on expediencies than facts, further insisting that all humans are always born with “bad” character only; and they say there are no spiritual worries if you treat those needing or aspiring to charity/mercy as surplus humanity and losers, preyed upon further by faker clergy of every stripe using made-up faiths to beat fellow pikers like say Laden out of more cash. 

I myself am not aware of any science which dispels my personal beliefs that humanity is imbued with souls all created by God, God operates in the nature of the Gospels, that ruthless, pitiless self-absorption (including direct or passive participation in or tacit mental tolerance/craven admiration for malevolent, hateful, or otherwise misanthropic egregiousness) is rooted in siren enticements of darkness, and that how you spend your life determines where God will then let you stay for eternity: eternal growth in simpatico with a God having no “need or use” for you Himself, or eternal ruthlessness of a realm run by a non-God who detests your existence at all.  

In other words, anyone can be what some call “good” without God, but only to the point, if any, someone needs the help of non-ontological licensed psychiatry to overcome bona fide physically caused impairments re fear(s) or anything else relevant, often it’s easier to stay “good” through the grace God makes available to all no matter how they perceive Him.

 

There are those in the world who say LBGT, or even other types of people, are being grafted on to either efforts to change faith deposits of assorted kinds, or are being grafted on to efforts to advance negative atheism, or both.

These seem incredibly aristocratic notions, perhaps used by assorted parties to effect control of one philosophy (ies) or another(s), or perhaps to play one kind against another, and so on. Certainly like anything else pro- or con- anything at all, LBGT and any other demographic(s) may be found in any public forum including religious and atheistic poses.

But that does not mean LBGT or anyone else should be perceived through philosophical stereotypes, just because any person(s) of any status may enjoy more ability or financial power can paint anyone any way(s) they for their own purpose(s) seek.

In re LBGT particularly, it robs such persons of dignity and ethical consideration to say they cannot marry because of religious reasons even if the highest secular Courts declare that lawfully they may; on the other side of the coin, so many jurisdictions within the USA alone are making ANY officiant in ANY marriage surplusage in ANY event, that many marriages between men and women can be made lawfully and religiously incontestable just by the man and woman signing and filing their own license under law where applicable…there is no rising tide of religious indignation alleging that somehow a marriage without God or His spokesperson present tears society apart, will or will not lead to procreation or mutual respect between such couples, or result in evil(s); further, what, if any, religion tells its members their marriage is annulled and ex post facto void before God when a male and female couple just don’t produce offspring of their own? Who says ovarian or uterine cancer, miscarriage, death of one or the other spouse, choice or financial circumstances, adoption instead, staying single, and so on, are such basis for failure to reproduce as to incur the wrath of God, be tossed out of the faith, or both?

Clearly, in the broadest everyday sense, marriage for the purpose of procreation is not THE drive of most faiths. This does not appear to support relevant religious “fear” that non-procreation in LBGT couples would therefore create a heinous sin crying out to Heaven; like anyone else, it remains clear that LBGT are best defined by the larger societal impacts each soul makes, not by the flag, banner, body, clothes, skin, race, philosophy, or anything else existing apart from the soul.

So much for opining on what “open source” philosophical salients appear to be. In my own perception, I simply would not want to go to my God at the end of my natural life and say something like: “I kept LBGT souls, or anyone else big shots or some manipulator said had cooties, from marrying, and further…as couples or individuals…I put myself between ANYONE AT ALL and Christ, or between anyone at all’s God as same has in peace revealed unto them, or both, since we all know You don’t want to hear from the wrong kind of souls Yourself in worship and peaceful faith living, right, God?”.

To reiterate, I see no philosophically sound basis for opposing LBGT marriage in general, nor for pretending moral stereotyping(s) of them, nor for barring the way of those LBGT who desire it to keep on seeking the voice of the Absolute in whatever faith they may wish to practice and be edified by on their souls’ eternal journeys…just like all the rest of us are free to manifest any religious belief or unbelief without stigmas like “it’s their way or my way or atheism, populist-take-all-in-totalism in any case” attached by anyone.

The goal of every peaceful faith is to bring people to the Absolute, not to me, any clergy, any king, any president, or secular licensee or politician, and to leave people free to decide which road in eternity they take selected through activity manifested as they invent, assent, or ignore in their quest for truth; again, nothing seems to make such quest unavailable to LBGT.

I thought I had critics when, reading say-so religion dictionaries which don't inquire of sources much, some people began to perceive that Universal Life means Unitarianism (nothing could be further from truth). But like anything else, Universalism needn't have a negative perception just because the U.N. or anybody thinks it should or hopes it will.   

It has been said that Universalism, likening certain Absolute cultural perceptions so closely as if to say “water is water everywhere”, is still a type of comparative mythology or comparative religion as it minimally affirms there are differences notwithstanding common goals.

Criticisms of even, then, Universalism (like comparatives outright) range from alleging comparatives de facto touch upon non-Absolute/Divine psychological faith regimens to alleging that comparatives (including Universalism)rob cultural differences through claiming in nature that one religion is just another name for another religion.

But consider how a number of governments, heading ex officio or otherwise directly influencing/funding/setting orthodoxies of faith within their realms, actually do all things and even run faiths in their globally recognized non-person abstracted sovereignty, no matter what else (secular or religious) relevant officials attempt to admix in; especially where global sovereignty respect is that a relevant land is not by its Constitution or other lawfulness a theocracy.

Now let’s say a relevant sovereignty has subscribed to one or more human rights or liberties treaties, and has never entered a lawful retraxit to same. Let’s say at least one such treaty or law subscribed to acknowledges that there be a degree of religious freedoms.

Suppose a group of religious Universalists, united in a belief that each person chooses their own faith, non-faith, or religious expression, together with union of belief that their members should eternally strive to do ethically and legally right things, observed that world national leader “A” insisted all or parts of a faith not being one they choose is dedicated to the ruin or subjugation of all sharing the “affronted” leader’s exemplary faith; further, suppose such Universalists further observed that neither the “offending” nor “offended” faiths made sense per a complaining leader’s interpretation; further still, suppose any leader exhorting, e.g., that one be a Ladenist or one be a Crusader or anything else of non-constructive purpose were to be insisting upon faith appeasements based on religious views so extreme even their own religious didn’t agree that it’s “A” versus the world, or “A” has a credible opinion so let’s appease them, or both.

Where even some Universalist simply makes the case their faith includes that all people are permitted by the Absolute to have the faith or non-belief they choose, this does not seem to manifestly scream: “Aha! Politicians, K-Street/KGB cult clergy! What psychology against government policies or whatever, what malcontents against one or more sovereigns!” One never knows what any particular person(s) in anything will do, but just by being a Universalist the odds of becoming a problem don’t increase any more than just by being a Chicago Bears fan. 

It’s equally incoherent to assert that any subject Universalist(s), suggesting it’s an invasion of State into Church to do all things possible to quash expression of other than a favored slim non-constructive faith view by one’s own people or otherwise (where a sovereignty is not a theocracy), would thus be “robbing cultural differences” , or calling one faith better than another, or calling one faith the re-named copy of another, etcetera…seems such Universalist(s) would just be engaging in apologetics for their own faith dynamic that each person has an obligation to not break the spirits of law, and has a right not only for any unbelief(s) but belief in the constructive peaceful religious expression(s) of one’s choice.

In our own case,  ULC Monastery minister may bring whatever belief or non-belief they may have, retain any appointment or membership in any other peaceful faith, speak or withhold as the Spirit moves or minister elects, and be responsible in their own unique instances for their own unique legal responsibilities; the ULC Monastery seems organized for promoting such religious freedom and includes belief in Scriptural forgiveness of sins but not their definition(s) , together with non-exhaustive belief in the sacrament of marriage and belief God calls all to His vineyard. How this could be deemed “psychology” or “a bona fide slap to other religious” is beyond my power to estimate.  

In contemplating this, it should be recalled that even some of the world’s leading faiths over millennia (“faiths”, not religions) experienced moments of sacred text controversy, and in every case…complete within themselves as autonomous texts and faiths…the vast majority of each faith’s adherents and clergy together and separately have come down solidly of perception in spirit against any interpretation or post-founding add-ons which advocate(s) any nature of malevolence, oppression, or repression, internationally or intra-nationally, on religious or any other grounds.

Wow...the DOW hits 10K, being mostly medical companies, as Feds clear Obamacare...wow, you can almost feel the salary hike and better job in your hands. Speaking of comfortable projection.....  

Could someone respecting “Civitas Dei” possibly advocate Socialism or human comforts run by angels? Absolutely. Would this be plausible within certain faiths? Well…… .

One noted 19^th century Socialist…Saint-Simon (1760-1825)…set forth in his 1825 work “New Christianity” his view that: the main function of society is the betterment of the moral and physical existence of the poorest class, women and all people together in emancipation make up society, society needs to erase concepts of private ownership, and society ought to organize itself towards making ANY poor automatically in receipt of bail-out to be on par with everyone else. A Saint-Simon contemporary, Fourier, dittoed all that, only instead of application on a mass scale he espoused local government communes…throw in the then contemporary UK Charterist movement (a six-point “Contract With Workers”), and you’d almost think it was like Federalists (GOP) and State/local rights (Democrats) chasing the same nomenclatura status of a devalued society while vying for Chairman. Indeed, there DO seem to be seeds for making a case that Socialism IS one (but only one) form of Christian religion (not FAITH, just religion).

One big flaw in such thought was that the more people you make “un-poor”, the poorer you make everyone else, then the poorer you make everyone (including all prior “un-poor”) with the next calibration of new “un-poor”, and so on to infinity. Marx, Engels, and Bolsheviks 1917-12/25/91 proved that. Surely, then, no secular or religious leaders or both are working from a Saint-Simon type orthodoxy in politics or faith…are they?

Overlook things like the monumentally huge amount of publicly-funded welfare programs government gives the super-archdiocese of the Chicago/Cook and Lake County Catholic Church (per its website); and lay aside how interesting it is so many psychologists, given to learning ALL religion/faith as anthropomorphized projections in pursuit of comfort, are giving a priori high-fives to the concept of angels in our lives. The real question is: can belief in angels be otherwise than a pan-Christian phenomenon ala Saint-Simon’s “New Christianity” or other than such mental projections as rips apart faith?

Consider angels in light of the complete Old Testament of Judaism together with the complete New Testament of Christianity.

Like shrouds, relics, indulgences, and such, the Bible makes scarce claim that any…let alone infinite hordes of…angels will visit earth, be assigned to folks, be assigned to nations, et al. Neither do angels seem to do more than guide a few people or make God’s announcements prior to Christ’s birth; angels sure weren’t out for the comfort of Sodom and Gomorrah, nor to help pre-Exodus Hebrew slaves, nor to help Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and so on. Okay, some may say, so maybe angels, to Jews on some God purpose, aren’t for THEM projections in research after comfort, but once Gabriel told Mary of God’s request, the very involvement of angels with the birth of the guy who brought “Civitas Dei” among us PROVES Christianity, at least, is a research after comfort due to Saint-Simon et sequitur, belief in ANY angel(s) for Christians to be badges of thirst for Socialism and its battles for absolute top say-so dog…now let’s regulate that FAITH as pure psychology!  

This would necessarily entail, then, that Christ’s earthly words directly or through terms commanded all humanity to simply see to each others’ comforts even if it means expecting no interest in repentance of psychopathic personalities (biological term, q.v., e.g., http://www.answers.com/topic/psychopathic-personality-psychology ), sociopaths, killers, and so on…and if it means paying Hitlers or Ladens no-strings, too. Goes against Scripture prohibiting abetting or extending Scriptural evil. 

Ontological metaphysics seems to place such comfort scenario squarely in opposition to Christ Himself, short-circuiting the very need for humanity to even be redeemed for ANYTHING it does or fails to do.

No Judeo-Christian Scripture claims that someone “not getting help from ‘their’ angel(s), despite outward good works and inner obedience to God, has “secret sin(s)”, and Jehovah Jireh Yahweh has verily kept His angels from seeing to wealth and comfort of such sinner “; in fact, Psalm 22 and especially Psalm 88…part of the law confirmed as Scripture by Christ, He indicating He only cancelled Leviticus with His mission…show how Godly and charitable one can be, wind up penniless, crushed, and outcast by society for losing all one had as society pursues others for its Saint-Simon-like goals, yet still be loved by God. As Jesus pointed out, we may chase away demons or the devil just by uttering His name, but it’s up to us to decide if we keep listening to a bad idea from evil to stone/banish “losers” or otherwise act poorly, or heed a Godly call to do right things. Jesus also does NOT say angels will DO things ala granting wishes, something which surely would make a mockery out of the call for HUMANS to do good works AND have free will in relation thereto. Jesus did not leave record that God will henceforth stop calling people, but Jesus did say that He will always be with us in using the Holy Spirit to guide us to things and knowledge WE can utilize or do or ignore, on our own choices.

Let’s not even start on the non-easy life writings in Scripture of the Apostles, which plainly include that REAL Christians EXPECT to earn honest livings, especially through the use of their hands.

To simplify, from this short narrative alone, I hope to show that just because someone has ANY degree of belief in angels, such person need not by definition or cheesy parallel inference endorse Saint-Simon Socialism, Calvinist “vessel of wrath” dogma, or both, nor be seeking earthly comfort through faith. 

Jesus having told us in Scripture to shake the dust from our sandals after leaving people case-hardened against the Gospels or taking from us not in humility but to our humiliation, this is why I believe that any religion or congregation using a group dynamic in manifest systematic tensions with its own sacred original texts (or ontology)does not constitute a “quorum” controlling in faith expression (nor “psychology” as any variance is plain), while any people who don’t care a whit about the gravamen of Scriptures in the first place (or enough to actually constantly act in peaceful faith) be left to themselves, and if apropos to Courts, psychologists, or both. 

This is why I further believe clergy and psychologists can together help society, yet without intermingling each other’s God-given talents and skills…ministers like me are concerned with life only as it very generally relates to speaking to SOULS on theophany and the next spiritual life; psychologists very necessarily and most properly can help people and the protection of society through treating those who find they just can’t follow a peaceful spirituality, reasonable law(s), or otherwise grow or participate on earth like most people do.

Insofar as angels per se, I agree with the Aristotelian dialectic of Anselm, the first known Western writer to touch the subject in considering “Cur Deus Homo”, and believe in comparison of Anselm to “De Casu Diaboli” and “De Fide Trin.”: it’s permissible to hold any view not disproved by Scripture where the faith is Christianity.

In considering that the war on terror may indeed be a place where leaders calling cooties on each other’s people trumps logic of their stated religious and secular “defenses” in every relevant land, I have referred to and completely reviewed the contents of the entirety of but the following open sources: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Morrison and Gibb Ltd UK and Charles Scribner’s Sons USA, 1961; Our Religions, Compiled by Arvind Sharma, HarperCollins, 1993; and Ways Of Being Religious, Compiled by Greg E. Kessler, Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000.

From said references, here is what I have found about Islam’s general metaphysics as they seem to relate to much-ballyhooed rhetoric on all sides these days about “terrorists v. crusaders” or vice versa, keeping in mind that all cited reference materials even in 1961 were aware of the peculiar extremist bent of Wahhabite Muslims:

1.       Islam does not view God in the light of being a Father with warm intentions towards repeatedly screwing-up children, instead viewed more as a master talking to servants; but the ethos afoot in this is more akin to St. Paul saying that he was a “slave of Christ”…if you want to have a good chance of progressing in the afterlife, you better treat the peaceful ethics of God as a second (first?) skin, because God is offering you only one earthly chance.

2.       There is no “go-to guy” in Islam, not so much as worship occurs ala Hinduism, wherein most practitioners worship in their homes, but because Islam (ala pre-Reformation Christianity then having only Roman/Orthodox Catholicism as options) long ago branched into Al-Hilli and Al-Ashari (moderate/orthodox) drive theologies, and since has acquired as many flavors of worship as has post-Reformation Christianity. Look, for example, at Mosques being as important to communal worship as are Temples and Churches.

3.       Islam ranges from Sufis who find other faiths of peace as non-competitors (“Because He that is praised is, in fact, One, in this respect all religions are one religion”, Jalal ad-din Rumi) all the way to the Wahhabites (“Islam is the only religion, destroy all who say otherwise or defend those being destroyed”…i.e., Osama bin Laden). Even to the vast number of peaceable Muslims, Wahhabites and any New Age kin have been as much an anomaly to Islam as abortion clinic bombing/lynching/shoot-em-up “Christians” have been to the vast number comprising Christianity…most Muslims are no more Ladenists than most baptized are Mafiosi, or say Orville Faubus.

4.       In many Muslim lands, governments thereof require a State interpretation of Islam and especially of what is or is not “sin”. In Islam there IS a sentiment that even if one break the law and appear to be acting contrary to God’s will expressed through an imam or leader, spiritually they don’t sin if they are doing God’s will in the “break”. The critical point is that Islam means things like killing any innocent person is an offense AGAINST Allah in absolutely every case; thus, if a Ladenist or even State sovereign asks you to toss passersby into ovens on claim this somehow is God’s will, and even if Laden or a sovereign offers poverty, torture or death for non-compliance, due to the “slavish” importance of Allah’s word a Muslim should never participate in such evil and believe Allah will not likely call “sin!” for failure to obey such Ladenist or leader, any more than He would call “sin!” for not harboring “Christian” lynch mobs. Thus, the kind of Muslim Allah will be merciful upon for aiding is NOT the Laden or similar kind.

That’s all for within purposes I intend to recite. Now, where foreign Muslim leaders exhort violence or likely recruit Muslim extremists for dirty deeds including IMF extortion and eradication of any other kind of Islam, a case can be made that security against the personality types such leaders attract and organize be had.

The curiosity is: why do so many world leaders, including in the USA, fund ONLY Islamic and all other faiths’ groups which are opposed to the words or metaphysics of their own sacred texts, while seeking to extinguish as “mere psychology” or “threats” any other faith, agnostic, atheist, political, or secular peaceably constructive interest, opinion, or self-contained orthodoxy?

Thus, to me, it seems the war on terror (and flipside war on infidels) is nothing but self-centered types quashing all ability to even be criticized or petitioned, and making anyone placed in social paralysis BY them “of interest” due to severely cramped prospects in a world ongoing in effort to “put wealth where it properly belongs”.

Yes, I AM for social order; I would just like to know: am I supposed to act like “Ahnold” in ‘True Lies’ re Ladenists attacking free people everywhere on earth, or am I supposed to think more like Robespierre re-thinking how right Cardinal Richilieu was about greedy peasants? Both? Neither?

Let's say (because of present good reason to) the Shroud Of Turin is and always has been a whopping big fake (if such a GOOD fake nobody can be accused since its day of taking it as authentic).

There is no Bible prophecy or word of God or Christ or anybody else in Abrahamic faiths that such a Shroud or "convincer" after the earthly time of Christ would come as a "sign". Could be why for about 1400 years before any Shroud, people heard from, of, or about Jesus and decided to follow His teachings or at least not be upset by them...on the strength of all arguments to His existence and credibility before, during, and after ANY real or imagined "relic" well afterward.

Thank you Italian atheists (for real!) who funded the current Shroud study; nothing to shake the bedrock of Abrahamic faiths, Christianity in particular...especially since other scientists especially atheist keep proving the first-of-first matter could not have created itself anyway.

Now, I chuckle at and pray for peace for atheists and others demanind that relgion be boiled in oil once and for all, or that the concept of "evil" wouldn't exist for anyone if we could boil away all God talk, and the like...our current times show what happens when that mentality is plied regardless of its popularity or deconstruction of all economic/social paradigms there when faith ISN'T ransacked, and the poor people telling us why we should hate God in any reference, allow evil to rule us body and world, blah blah...such people NEVER tell us what's going to be better for us once such goal is completed. It's like the poor misguided souls don't even notice the societal circular logic attached to their zeal to end religious, or in fact any, standard of ethics.

This is my general impression of metaphysics,  that which attempts to discern and explain the nature of reality and being.

Apparently trying to tie together: Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Johann Fichte, Friedrich Schelling, Arthur Schopenhauer, George Friedrich Hegel, Ernst Mach, and a host of other pragmatist, positivist, ordinary-language, phenomenology, and existentialist philosophers, who together reduce to a demand metaphysics be restricted to a rigorous intellectual discipline based only in mathematics and exact physical sciences, Sigmund Freud said all religion is but an attempt to project one’s self to create an imaginary supersensible Absolute via anthropomorphizing forces of nature and otherwise.

 

The ground of Freud and such mentioned philosophers is that our universe requires nothing outside itself to be, thus all realities, including intellects, are not tethered to anything but their own beings.

 

It’s notable that Freud, as with his contemporary and preceding philosophers, existed before the dawn of advanced astrophysics, e.g., general global relativity theory ala Stephen Hawking. Branches of such “exact physical sciences” prove such philosophers erred: 1. Our universe required another universe before coming into being, and did not create itself from nothing or thus pre-exist as an entire Absolute; and 2. There is currently admission by physicists that they cannot explain, then, where the first of all universes came from, or any void(s) before it. This is not to say Freud was completely unhinged, just that his extent of all human potentiality may be somewhat flawed as a basis for extinguishing ontology as a branch of metaphysics.

 

Another major school of psychiatry, founded by Carl Gustav Jung, originated in philosophy such as John Calvin’s fatalism re predestination: per Calvin, one is called to prove one’s heroism, an error in Christianity as it requires people to rely on their own inner qualities even if unsavory. Whereas Jung might admit even tacitly of a Deist world placed here by a detached Absolute, wherein humans are disjected membra, there seems little in authentic Christian Scripture which elevates Calvin beyond synthetic a priori metaphysician; because Jung believed Calvin who espoused an opinion at odds with Scriptures, there seems less “religious proof” of exclusive recourse to natural realities, and more autocratic establishment of one religious orthodoxy.

 

This reduces metaphysics to two kinds: 1. Philosophy of being, or philosophy of cosmology (Ontology), and 2. Philosophy of nature or philosophy of mind (Psychology). Psychology is concerned with concrete forms of reality; ontology is concerned only with the nature of the real in abstraction from its embodiments.

 

Insofar as defining the Absolute, psychology seeks to prove the real is self-consistent in a final unity of mind with nature. Ontology seeks to prove that the Absolute puts all things into what we perceive as reality, but does not reproduce any of it in the Absolute realm…the real is the self-consistent, but all reality and its relation to senses is found to be self-contradictory and therefore only appearances. Although some people feel that if Judaism and Christianity, the only well-known non-henotheistic religions claiming foundation from the Absolute Himself, would just go away, nothing at all would stop raw psychology from being the arbiter of absolute and ethical conditions. Yet, theoretical and allied physicists alone deflate such anti-religion hopes, simply by demonstrating the universe did NOT create itself, nor did any of its forebears. Nothing then exists with which to resoundingly rip to their roots, say, at minimum, the Scriptures of Abrahamic faiths.

 

Called by Christ in the Spirit, and as a student of Christian metaphysics, I take the words of Jesus Christ as absolutely true, including His proclamation that ALL who do His Father’s will (as indicated through Christ) are His brothers and sisters in salvation…even henotheistic, polytheistic, and secular philosophy followers who, without unsavory intents or applications, genuinely live in analog to Christ’s teachings.

 

I myself hope psychologists and theologians (together with religious laities) will stop contesting toward a permanent quashing of one or the other of themselves. Instead, they could become separate yet symbiotic aides in helping others to live life to its fullest.

 

For example, where a minister takes notice of faith not seeming enough to overcome some anomaly in a congregant or visitor, there might be an undisclosed or undetectable (even to psychologists without involved tests) substance or personal issue causing disruption to a person’s progress, and such person should be referred by clergy (or religious laity) to licensed psychologists and prayed for; not unlike clergy calling an ambulance if a congregant clutches their chest and falls down.

 

Then again, where no psychologist or Court can (nor could) compel therapy (ies) for a perceived anomaly due to intrinsic dynamics, either because the anomaly is sane and prefers their behavior(s) or can be made to feel less alienated being alone simply by taking a pill while continuing in isolation, there should be little if any objection to such persons coming into contact with the literature or ministers of POSITIVE Christian or analogous faith(s).

 

In sum, my own metaphysical efforts are purely ontological in nature, seeking to interpret being in the context of the Gospels of Christ and by Him therein-referenced Old Testament Scriptures, and expositing on other faiths and philosophies to demonstrate wherein any are analogous to the meanings of Christ, thus not only leading them also to salvation but making them partners on our earthly journey.

 

Incidentally, as a result of my metaphysics, I preach a God of the constantly living; a God Who intends we use our earth, with talents and gifts given by Him in work or trade suited to them, that we may learn the costs of evil and of appeals to self-centeredness, the charity of edifying others, the virtue of mercy and compassion, together with serving others in diverse cultural fellowship not for our own comfort but in feeling and joining in God’s love; a God Who doesn’t follow us with a minutiae-minded scorecard but reads our hearts, ready to forgive sins if one uses time left to turn from giving in to or joining darkness (no matter the weight)and stays with or returns to His strengths, promises, and love; and a God Who leaves it all up to us as to whether we next dwell with Him in even greater things without want, or next dwell in the ever-diminishing returns of a darkness already sworn to the eternal downfall of us all.  

 

 

There are those in the world who say that if the USA government would just stop embracing not so much Jesus Christ, but a “medieval” or thus by extension “Crusader” mentality about Him, we could get the Olympics in 2016 and save our own, the Western Hemisphere’s, and global economy. This is in response to such high-minded sounding rodomontade.

First, the Summer Olympics for at least a number of consecutive human lifetimes now have been held every four years, with a smattering of Winter Olympics as well; these Olympics are always in different countries one after another; under Bush alone, there were several Olympics, yet not even the countries hosting them seem to have helped their own economies, let alone their region’s or Hemisphere’s economies…to say nothing about globally. Indeed, of all the things even Osama bin Laden and his admirers rant, never once do they say “bring the Olympics, one kind or another, to Taliban-type lands so more than infidels, apostates, and human refuse of all religious stripes may prove they love our poor, our unemployed, our listless, and don’t deserve genocide like we exhort all people under our domain”.   

If we could believe Chicago and Obama about Olympics, however, a good dose of New Urbanism to Pakistan, for example, might leave Laden, whom Pakistan’s government and USA DHS from Ridge to Napolitano say has so many apartments/open areas to hide in, forced to stop or be picked up due to no more places to hide, plot, or maneuver unobserved. And surely, from Obama to China to Daley and more, such luminary global leaders would concur the wealth every Olympics delivers to large countries would do more for a small Pakistan than all its begging for IMF and foreign aid funds.

But that’s not how it works. Instead, luminary global officials tout any Olympics as a magical sinecure that can’t be put in Taliban lands as Ladenists, among everything else humanly imaginable, hate or manipulate all capitalism…by extension, one may even tacitly become “of interest” to USA DHS or foreign analogs thereto just for questioning the value of Olympics as a road to salvation, prosperity, or both; global leaders would LIKE to help Muslims but fear losses and casualties if holding Games in say Iran or Pakistan. What we have to do to share with Muslims, therefore, is to turn “all Muslims” from Ladenism by convincing them Christianity no longer is the Crusade against them it’s “always” been; this is why so many global governments have to be the actual or virtual heads of Christian faiths, fine-tuning “Crusader” mentalities and casting them out. 

China’s Communist government excels at “re-educating” not only Christian sects, but Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian sects within its sphere; China even promotes “heads-of-State as Supreme Imam” Islam, as evidenced by its long support of Pakistan’s style of regimes…see, your Mushareff and successor types are “containing” Ladenism “harmlessly” in Pakistan, even if it was “oops!” re Mumbai prior to at least $290 billion in USA 2009 aid, or “oops!” that Pakistan eyes the Mymood Alibabajihad “genocide-to-Zionists” mentality in “un-contained” Iran, Syria, and Lebanon…odd, I never knew JEWS of yore or otherwise were “Crusaders” against Islam. Despite this, China vigorously supports any Muslim regimes which espouse hate against Israel, India, Tibet, the USA…on pretense they “have” to say that to keep Ladenists away from them; of course, ol’ Laden won’t buy it for long and keep propane-tank style anarchy away unless hate-espousing nations follow through with anti-Zionist, anti-Hindu, anti-fill-in-the-blank rants.   

Again, you’d think the New Urbanism and alleged cash boon of the Olympics in Pakistan would just be used to flick Laden away; or at minimum, you’d think somebody would just give a nation $290 billion if they slammed Ladenists shut for good in their borders. So why this contorted “appoint Laden as King of Islam, re-arrange or eradicate all other faiths and philosophies to appease him” baloney?

If the Olympics are touted as a sinecure to tempt Muslims away from Laden, as all metaphysics and philosophies running counter to Ladenists are hushed or ended to clear Muslim view of the Olympic carrot, yet not even $290 billion and much more stops Ladenists from in fact pressing Muslims into their service where they will not do so voluntarily, surely even global luminaries have spotted the logic problem and thus pursue against non-Ladenist metaphysics and philosophies on grounds not tethered to Islamic issues in any way.

Certainly, today’s Western leaders, plus China inter alia, are eager to co-exist with Iranian, Hamas, Janjaweed, and Taliban leaders…leaders who rule by types of constant genocide or piecemeal murdering of anyone at all opposed to them, even if all they want to do is be “leaders” without pestering by commoners or outsiders. ..by “Crusaders”, if you will.

This brings the second issue: does Christianity of ANY kind exist only as a “Crusade” to exterminate Islam, its adherents, or both? To be sure, Laden being a Muslim means no more against total Islam than George Bush being baptized impugns all Christians; what would global luminaries then say exists in Scriptures that must be changed to placate the “Crusader-abused” leaders? Answer: that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit by His direction will always be with us, everywhere.

For example, President Obama, as DHS and Office of Faith-Based Initiatives head ex officio, has called Pope Benedict XVI (claiming apostolic succession) a discredited leader, and almost “dared” him to pray for Ted Kennedy (as if prayer for HIS kind of reputation would not come ). Yet Obama has been very active with Notre Dame University this year, a university of Jesuit institution but now for first time ever run by a non-Jesuit Catholic ordinary priest, Father McBrien.

McBrien first gave Obama an honorary law degree in May 2009, a sort of way of saying that the new President of the USA, head of faith funding and education funding, is all the right stuff in all things secular…including the aforementioned view of Laden appeasement. As the May event showed, even any Catholic non-violently protesting Obama would be summarily hauled off and charged by McBrien as a trespasser. Then in September 2009, McBrien opined that Benedict XVI and all prior Popes are liars: Eucharistic Adoration is a worthless sham geared to “medieval” (i.e., “Crusader”) morons suckered in to lining the Vatican’s coffers on a scam of crackers dunked in Ripple.

For a Roman Catholic priest to suggest that Eucharistic Adoration is a sham definitely DOES indicate such priest does not believe in a limitless presence of Christ, any more than do foreign leaders who don’t like even their own “pests”.

To eliminate the impression this is just some “ULC schmuck forced to go ULC as Catholicism rids itself of Popish Crusaders”, my actual calling of the Holy Spirit is to edify re the commonality in metaphysics of all peaceable faiths seeking eternal progress in global fellowship; to support my position that Father McBrien is denying Christ’s limitless presence and not some “Crusader cookies-for-winos” anti-Islam doctrine, I cite the following Roman Catholic doctrines relevant to other faiths and the Eucharist:

1. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as adopted 1994 by Pope John Paul II as prepared under Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

Article 841 reiterates “Lumen Gentium” 16 (November 21, 1964) and “Nostra Aetate” 3 (October 28, 1965), as follows: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day”.

Articles 842 through 846 obviously are aimed at ANY religious who adopt ANY self-service; this is made clear by Article 847, which reiterates Mark 16:16, John 3:5, and “Lumen Gentium” 14 as follows: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation”.

Ironically, it would seem to TRASH such Vatican view of Muslims could do more to make the TRASHER look like a “Crusader”; to trash this, one must imply the presence of Christ is foreclosed to ANYONE the trasher decides, Muslim or not…this is called emulating metaphysics of Ladenist/Taliban religious stylings, NOT Islam, for “appeasement”; Taliban types hold God tells them which Muslims or otherwise are worthy to live and such, and that He disfavors the rest anyway no matter good they do…sort of like Mid-East Calvinists. Worse, at minimum, trashing the Article 841 take on Muslims (and those of other walks) seems to imply “Aha! See? The Vatican and its believers are all worthless destroyers of Muslims”, where quoted perhaps by Ladenists or other AUMF subjects, destabilizing DHS and similar public relations efforts against Ladenism.

I must point out that like the IRS requires each individual Church location, not just faith, to have its own EIN non obstante its affiliation, the Vatican Catechism is what it hopes will guide the local catechisms, if any, each bishopric may undertake to make; many people do, and do not, always understand that for a long time the views of any Roman Catholic parish clergy and deacons may not be those of the Vatican or vice-versa, in either case a good number of Catholic laity taking the side of the Vatican. As a ULC minister, I can agree with the Vatican only, insofar as welcoming sincere people of peaceful other faiths, including such Muslims, and believing in a generally boundless presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

2. Since the Roman Catholic Vatican perception of the Last Supper Seder is that it be practiced at His command in remembrance of Him and His teachings, there being no known Vatican doctrine a Eucharist is a symbol of faith intolerance, I will identify what the Eucharist appears to signify per Vatican doctrine.

In contemplation of the presence of Christ by the power of His word and the Holy Spirit, the Catechism at Article 1373 reiterates Romans 8:34, “Lumen Gentium” 48, Matthew 18:20, and “Sacrosanctum Concilium” 7 (December 4, 1963) as follows: “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us, is present in many ways to His Church: in His Word, in His Church’s prayer, ‘where two or more are gathered in My Name’, in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But He is present…most especially in the Eucharistic species”.

So this is more than just a “feudal” proposition for those who believe in the complete Jesus; if a Father McBrien or anyone else suggests there’s never anyone to adore in a Eucharist, they necessarily impute that they have not only a different catechism and doctrine than the Vatican, but from the Gospels and Scriptures themselves…because they claim to believe Christ can be limited as to where He can go generally or enter by voluntary invitation, including at the request of clergy and assembled laity. Further, the Vatican stemming (as does the Eastern Orthodox branch of Catholicism) from the original Churches immediately after Christ’s earthly days, Scriptures of those days describing Christ as saying or doing more than has been recorded, and it being from the earliest Churches that the remembrance Seder has been celebrated, surely such Christians perceive some Divinity worship is involved therein, and for purpose(s) made tradition since the incarnate time of Christ Himself.  

By extension, such variant religious freedom from the Vatican implies that there would be nothing wrong in barring religious assemblies for purposes of a Communion Mass (and not just Roman Catholic), because a McBrien-type view says there’s never a thing in or adjunct to ANY Eucharist to ever be adored, worshipped, knelt for, or which can bring God’s grace. That concept is Father McBrien’s Constitutional right, and free spiritual choice. Only Father McBrien or similar Vatican critics could say if they think Christ also might not be in Church prayer, the sick, the imprisoned, and so on, again this all being their right to express.

In contrast to Father McBrien, here are some Vatican ephemera on what would be the purely emblematic faith purpose of any Roman Catholic Communion Mass. Number 13 of the General Instruction of the Sacramentary states: “Within the community of the faithful a presbyter also possesses the power of orders to offer sacrifice as the person of Christ. He presides over the assembly and leads its prayer, proclaims the message of salvation, leads the people in offering sacrifice through Christ in the Spirit to the Father, gives then the Bread of Eternal Life and shares it with them. At the Eucharist he serves God and the people with dignity and humility. By his proclamation of the Word he impresses upon the faithful the living presence of Christ”.

Where a McBrien-type objection begins to sound more like opposition to any assembly for Last Supper remembrance is taken from the same General Instruction’s Number 3: “The celebration takes into account the nature and circumstances of each assembly and is planned to bring about conscious, active, and full participation of the people, motivated by faith, hope, and charity”.

To reiterate all this wind: Olympics have a terrible track record of fixing the manifest economy of ANY nation; there is no need to join foreign Ladenist appeasers through diminishing or doing away with public displays of Christianity or appearance social issues have its ethic, as most Catholics and similar Christians don’t “Crusade” against any peaceable faiths; and in fact diminishing Vatican or analogous standpoints on Islam, or otherwise inculcating a largely unchurched society, doesn’t neuter Ladenists, it makes it seem Ladenists are correct about one’s people being “Crusaders”, especially since they appear to be Christians who disagree there’s even a desire to gather in faith, hope, and charity.  

If you think government has it wrong on religious assembly or freedom, peaceably petition them; if you don’t like what Father McBrien, Benedict XVI, a Hindu priest, a Rabbi, a Lutheran or Baptist pastor, I, or any other clergy say, politely point out a grievance, then accept our answer or ignore us…but in every case, please pray for us, and ceaselessly for the whole world.

Recently, America Needs Fatima, a Catholic-themed group, asked me to email Notre Dame asking the university to retract statements finding the Eucharist a worthless medievalism; here is what I emailed to Notre Dame today on behalf of actually ALL people of any peaceable faith or philosophy:

"Dear Fr. McBrien,
   
Even if the Eucharist were just emblematic, it is emblematic of something God as Jesus Christ Himself instituted AS such emblem; further, it is certainly plain in Christology that Jesus Christ can heal directly, or, as in the case of a Roman centurion's son, at two day's distance by Word alone...and so it goes; and to date, no one has ever theologically explained how Christ cannot intend to use remembrance via bread or wafer to somehow draw people closer to His presence, vineyard workers, or both...or could not, if He or the Father willed, be in a Eucharist or anything, anywhere else the Father pleased.

Even Einstein studied the principles of the Eucharist, and found trans-substantiation not at all impossible under the laws of physics.

In that Mohammed himself said Jesus Christ plus several Judaic prophets are among those 25 people who MUST be revered in Islam, it seems an outright lie to claim Muslims or anyone else (other than Ladenist types) worldwide will love erasure of Jews, Christ, or their teachings; in any event, mentioning this to a Christian person, Jesus Himself said the next life may not be entered with a red carpet where one trying to do great deeds in His name has abandoned Him to save the earthly self/people, so denying Christ to appease Ladenists and thus sacrificing the the purposes for which God put all other peaceable people, faiths, and secularisms on earth...somehow, that would seem not on par with the words of Christ, and could in fact tacitly infer those under the power of Satan serve a far superior being, one to be craven admiration in hopes of earthly comfort, advanced personal position, increases to one's coffers, or combinations thereof.

To reiterate, under secular science no proof exists against trans-substantiation, the Eucharist is emblematic of worship or adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ, no "greater good for mass humanity" could be demonstrated through excoriating believers in the Eucharist, and wherefore, I respectfully submit to you that an apology to those holding the Eucharist dear be made."

I figure I might as well share my emails, since recently Google started melding the Gmail account "republiservative@gmail.com" with my separate personal Gmail account...like now I'll have cooties, or something. Further, anybody at all who reads this blog already knows I'm a ULC minister anyway so "boo!" back at ya, Google.

Of course homeland security needs PATRIOT for real ACTIVITIES which, like any organized crimes, betoken anarchistic or enemy foreign agent style endeavors; but the object isn't just to make EVERYTHING anybody at all can be doing/saying, supporting/protesting, or remaining silent upon a "sign" of "interest"...IS it?

Wherefore, it seems logical to re-authorize USA PATRIOT, perhaps for ten years at a pace, like all other laws, so that in the nature of RICO, FISA, and similar laws, America (and perhaps the world) are safer from bona fide terrorist and enemy agent types operating outside even RICO type statutes to a much more deadly end; at the same time, the Kennedy-inspired STANDARDS Act should be built into ANY re-authorization of USA PATRIOT, to ensure that its mission doesn't creep into just about everything even normal people of earth do.

You know, the author of within blog, “Republiservative”, doesn’t walk around with his life accomplishments, emoluments, 30+ ACT score, prior elected partisan committeemanships, and such hung around his neck, or even (usually) dressed to the nines including Florsheim Royal or regular Imperials; no, except for the fact he combs his hair and shaves daily, Republiservative otherwise is like an at-large version of the old Peter Falk character “Columbo”…and he interacts in the same non-biased, non-pretentious ways with the world, because he reveres the law and LIKES people, be they artists or first professionals or his critics or anything else except sociopaths.

Today, your within author was out for his weekend morning walk around downtown Salem, Oregon, and at about 8:30 AM noticed all these “No Parking: Tea Party Express March And Capitol Steps Event 11:30AM-12:30 PM” around various Capitol-area streets; I decided not to participate but observe this “Tea Party Express” in action, and en route back to it just after starting time noticed the Marion County Democrats had street signs at their downtown office saying “meeting this morning”…they’re the ones who can pull dozens to non-stop local events while insisting ALL Oregon thinks Obama is way better than Bush (as if any of Oregon’s manifest majority population ever voted for Bush)…I didn’t see anybody walk into or out of this morning’s meeting.

While I didn’t fan out into the crowds with full surveillance tech or even as little as one acquaintance, here’s what I observed: the attendees grew to a crowd by end that appeared numbering no more than in the low to mid-100’s; most attendees appeared to come in groups from more sparsely populated areas of Oregon; every man, woman, and child I could observe was Caucasian; placards where visible had slogans like “Less Illegal Invaders Equals More Jobs”, and other situational extremely remote economic misunderstandings; most placard wavers were young to senior farming community members; a number expressed that this was their first foray to a “big city” in years; and about a half-dozen males all under age thirty by looks milled along perimeters yelling a two-word pro-Caucasian phrase. Of course, most attendees either had nothing to say or express, or brought USA flags to wave as if perhaps thinking they’re just frazzled generally re the economy…most certainly seemed uninterested in the six punks chanting racist slogans. Other than that, it was sunny and about 80 degrees Fahrenheit with no real wind.

The event speakers were all of Oregon GOP origin, and that seemed to be the point: raise future campaign workers by identifying with attendees upset with things, via just blaming Obama and Democrats for poor stewardship causing all attendees’ woes “whatever they may be”, and via tolerating ANY placard or slogan chant or silence without asking anyone to leave.

The entirety of GOP speaking could be summed up in the statement of the Marion GOP Womens’ leader (I swear, with stops and breaths, no applause or other audience interruptions, it took 5 minutes to say this): “ I…am…the head…of the Marion GOP Women….We wear red blazers……Of course………men are allowed to join….us…….but as associates only……..I urge you to support…..our party November 5th....stop by the Marion booth before you leave”. Other speakers simply urged attendees to contact “COMMON SENSE” and similar PACs, and of course any GOP candidates, for future change they can believe in. Thus was the glory of this robust backlash of the Rising Tide of Republicanism throughout the USA and Oregon…about as “robust” as the dozens of folks Marion Democrats say are but a mere sampling of Obamamania.   

I noted further that Oregon has a much more ethnically diverse population, and aggregate State population infinitely eclipsing the Tea Party and Marion Democrats combined; once again, this inter-racial, international behemoth of Independents was unavailable for attending OR protesting ANY partisan political event. Independents…the kind who see that no job for a national is no job for any immigrant and vice versa; that national or immigrant, it’s the same economic system; and so forth through the social and trade gamut.

Wherefore, I can only assess from my experience that this “Tea Party Express” is pure rodomontade of paycheck-seeking partisans having no more intention of changing status quos in the future than they did themselves under Bush and now Obama…such partisans won’t even commit to what THEY think is wrong and specifically WHAT they would immediately do if elected. These Tea Party things then are just to find folks upset with “ins” on pedestrian hope the “outs” THIS time would care.

The Tea Party Express appearing a load of political baloney topped with red herring, perhaps the majority of Oregon’s population was too busy trying to figure out: why a stock market made up only of Google, pharmaceutical companies, and cell phone makers is “up” on news now “only” two million per month seem to be losing jobs and foreclosures soar; how new paving jobs around Salem (starting as the Legislature sets to convene) will “put Oregon back to work” as road signs claim, since no workplaces/jobs is no workplaces/jobs pretty road or ugly road; and why today’s Saturday “Oregonian” headline is that Oregon food stamp use has increased 31% the last year to a record high, with the State predicting it will go higher still in 2009 (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/09/record_number_of_oregonians_go.html ). Then there’s DHS calling the unemployed “alienated of interest through 2019”, USA paying Pakistan billions no-strings while coddling Taliban, a USA commission placing India on a “religious rights watch list” for not bowing to Taliban law, and all that creepy stuff from this Spring.

Anybody over at Tea Party land or Marion cheerleading ready to say we should bail on status quo, and if so, what we’ll immediately do in its place? And if only handfuls of folks with friends named “Skeeter” opposing handfuls of slackers passes as “zesty and issue-complete” GOP-DEM electoral combat, why should anyone believe no-trail voting would show folks only vote for GOP or DEM as representative of what voters on the whole worry about?