How could a moral God allow suffering?

[Amandil]

So you don’t get to choose them. You simply accept them in faith. What are they? Describe them to me so I know when you would accept them and when you wouldn’t.

This is really not difficult…

It’s an absurd question because we do not know the future. It’s impossible to describe hundreds of thousands of hypothetical fates, much less a dozen when the sufficient answer is that “we cross that bridge when we come to it.”

And that you continue to posit an absurd question which has already been answered sufficiently claiming that it has not is a mark of dishonesty and insincerity.

 

[marymary1975]

I think there are two concepts you need to understand first with regard to your question. First and most importantly, a very basic rule of life: Actions have consequences! For every action there is a reaction. And even more importantly action are similar to a pile of dominos standing up, if you hit the first one all come down. The consequences of one action are not for the next day or two, they are for the long run and sometimes forever.

You mention " what about suffering without cause" that doesn’t exist. Everything in life has a cause. When God first created not only the earth but its laws - from gravity to every scientific rule - he created a perfect system and he gave rules to human to follow in that perfect system. As long as humana followed the rule everything was perfect no pain no suffering. God gave them one prohibition. Do not do X because if you do you are going to die. God as supreme creator knew the consequences of the action he forbid. He knew that abreachbwas going to hhappen and as result suffering would enter the earth so he forbid. Unfortunately for us Adam and eve thought there knew better and broke the rule. The reaction to that consequence: death, sin and suffering entered the world for the long run and to haunt us forever. So there is no suffering without cause. Suffering is rooted on sin even the sad situation of a kid being born with a disease is the consequence of that first sin because through that sin suffering entered the wworld, our nature changed to a fallen nature and as a result of that fallen nature every evil came into the world.

Second what is free will. Free will is nothing but your comcious ability to make decisions. It is your capacity to think. Before doing something think is thisbeight or wrong, what is going to happen if i do x or if i do y. Free will is basically each human’s abikity to think and take peraonal reaponsibility for their own actions. Free will is not overrated because is crucial as everything you do or you don’t do is the product of your free will. Either if it is something you don’t change in your own life that should be change because you are too lazy or something as simple as walking by a poor man in the morning and not stopping to help that person because you are late for work. And that free will you exercise every second of your life is going to create consequences for you and for the entire world and for the future of others. If you consciously choose good, the consequences in your life and the life if others will be good. Choose God you will be saved. Choose evil you will only add more suffering and pain not only to you but to your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, because the consequencesbof actions go beyond the scope of your own self to build your future and the future of others.

Your view of the rape situation is wrong. God does not choose the free will of rapist. First god gave every human being very strict rules to follow precisely to stop sin so at least suffering would be decreased and gave us an obligation to choose to follow his rules so God is not choosing the rapist because the rapiat is violating his rules and believe sooner or later the rapist is going to suffer the consequences of his action. Second your way of rhinking as to the rape is the common place the blame on other and not look on what youbare doing qrong. You are here placing the blame of a rape on God but…whatvare you doing to prevent rape? What is society doing to prevent rape? Is your own behavior contributing to rape? What do you do whem outher guys joke about rape or when you see your friends miatreating their girlfriends? Or what do you do when you see men putting women down or disrespecting women? Are you personally doing anything to stop rape? That is in great part thevreason of so much suffering in the world because the attitude of humansbis to excuse their own swlf, not taling personal responsability foe your own wrongs and throw blame on othera because we are to lazy to correct your own self and we like to live in our wrong ways.

Rape is a societal crime that has roots in sin and general culture. Culture teaches that men are entitled to women and that women are here to please men and do not deserve respect and dignity. Rape happens because people thinks women are less than men. Don’t blame God of something that he is ordering not to do but that happens because you, me and the entire society doesn’t do enough to stop it and follow what God says. Again free will and consequences go beyond the spectrum of your own self and every little action you or i do, every small sin we do adds up to a huge pile that keep growing bigger.

You cannot conclude that there is no God because there is suffering. There is suffering because people refuses to follow God and to obey his rule. What you said is like saying barbers do not exist because there are people on the street not clean and not shaved with long beards and never cut their hairs. Is it the barber’s fault that the person decides not to get a haircut and not to get shaved? Do not blame God when the cause of suffering is not him but you, me and every human in this world, and even less when God is telling us what to do to stop that suffering and we refuse to listen to him.

 

[Bradski]

It’s an absurd question because we do not know the future. It’s impossible to describe hundreds of thousands of hypothetical fates, much less a dozen when the sufficient answer is that “we cross that bridge when we come to it.”

I should point out that hypothetical questions are an integral part of philosophical discussions. And we’re not talking of hundreds.

It has been claimed that giving one’s life for strangers is a ‘good thing’. What we now need to do is ask ourselves under what conditions each of us would be prepared to do this so we find out if it is a good thing all the time or only at certain times or for all people or just for some.

It has also been claimed that Christianity has an advantage over, for example, atheism, because Christians are willing to do this when atheists are not.

Despite most posters claiming it to be a very good thing to do I’m finding it extremely hard to find anyone who would actually do it. It seems to be the case that it’s a very good idea as long as it involves someone else.

If the claim is going to be made I’d like to think that someone here would have the courage of their convictions. Using the case of organ donation is a simple method of testing it. If anyone can think of another hypothetical where you personally would give up your life, then let it be known.

 

[tonyrey]

But anyway… This is a new tack. Along the lines of: yes, there has been untold agony, but…also a lot of pleasure.

I’m not sure what point that makes. At least it does assume the ‘untold agony’ etc. It’s a start,
I guess,

The point is that your view of life was unbalanced but now you agree it is not all doom and gloom.

Do you have any idea what the purpose has been?

Your remark "I find life quite refreshing contradicts your view that the “untold agony” of millions of creatures demonstrates that life is purposeless. Is it purely by chance that life is refreshing?

 

[Amandil]

I should point out that hypothetical questions are an integral part of philosophical discussions. And we’re not talking of hundreds.

Your continued hypothetical questions are useless and do nothing to advance the discussion. We given you what we know. It would be absurd to give you answers to things which we can’t know.

It has been claimed that giving one’s life for strangers is a ‘good thing’. What we now need to do is ask ourselves under what conditions each of us would be prepared to do this so we find out if it is a good thing all the time or only at certain times or for all people or just for some.

IOW, “what will I get out of it?”

You apparently cannot even conceive of an instance where someone may not look only to his own benefit and instead purely towards the benefit of the other.

It has also been claimed that Christianity has an advantage over, for example, atheism, because Christians are willing to do this when atheists are not.

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Despite most posters claiming it to be a very good thing to do I’m finding it extremely hard to find anyone who would actually do it. It seems to be the case that it’s a very good idea as long as it involves someone else.

If the claim is going to be made I’d like to think that someone here would have the courage of their convictions. Using the case of organ donation is a simple method of testing it. If anyone can think of another hypothetical where you personally would give up your life, then let it be known.

Editorializing…

 

[Bradski]

You apparently cannot even conceive of an instance where someone may not look only to his own benefit and instead purely towards the benefit of the other.

Sure I can. And I did. I would do it myself. I said I would give my life for my children. I think almost anyone would for their own children. But…that is not what you have been talking about. You have said that it’s a good thing to give your life up for a stranger. This is what Christians do, as opposed to atheists for example.

But all I’m getting are examples of other people doing it. No-one, it would appear, wants to hold their hand up and say: Yes, it’s a good thing, a Christian thing, and *I *would do it.

Can you not see why I’m not the slightest bit convinced by what you are telling me?

 

[Amandil]

Sure I can. And I did. I would do it myself. I said I would give my life for my children. I think almost anyone would for their own children.

Yet you in fact said that you wouldn’t even do that “gladly”.

I certainly would give my life gladly, not only for my children but for “strangers” as well.
Brodsky:

But all I’m getting are examples of other people doing it. No-one, it would appear, wants to hold their hand up and say: Yes, it’s a good thing, a Christian thing, and *I *would do it.

Can you not see why I’m not the slightest bit convinced by what you are telling me?

Either you have a problem with reading comprehension or your purposefully avoiding the fact that several of us has said precisely what you claim we haven’t.

 

[Richca]

This is a classic theological question, one that I have never had properly answered, I’m sure it’s been asked before but I’ll try to add my own spin to it, let’s get started!
This question tends to go along the lines of
" Look at all the grief and misery in the world! How could God allow all this suffering, how could he allow rape and murder?!?"
Which usually receives the following answer, “Well you see, suffering exists because God allows humanity to have free will, if there is no suffering, then there is no free will, we would be mindless robots!”

However I have some problems with that answer which I will summarize into two main critiques.

One, this doesn’t explain gratuitous suffering or suffering without cause.

For example some babies are born with cancer or other serious diseases through absolutely no fault of their own or anyone else’s. So would God be interfering with free will if he cured the babies of their disease? Or what about victims of hurricanes or tsunamis or other naturally occurring tragedies? What do unfortunate random circumstances have to do with free will? Why couldn’t God save these people?

Two, free will is overrated

Let’s say a woman is about to be raped, God has the power to stop it, but chooses not to because the rapist has free will. I can understand this point of view as free will is very valuable and is one of the characteristics of being human. But what about the free will of the woman? She obviously doesn’t want to get raped, so if God doesn’t interfere, someone’s free will is going to get violated anyway, so why not interfere on the side of the woman? This sort of makes me think that God is choosing the free will of a rapist over the well-being of an innocent woman, in what way could that possibly be moral?

Also it could be argued this opens up a paradox.
God is all-powerful He is also completely and utterly kind.
Yet there is suffering.
So God is not all-powerful,
Conclusion there is no God
Or
God is not all kind
Conclusion God is evil

I am very interested to see your responses!

God allows suffering for our own good, i.e., the eternal salvation of our souls. The fact of the matter is that creatures are made by God out of nothing and would return to nothing if God did not preserve them in existence at every moment; creatures are totally dependent on God for everything. Adam and Eve, our first parents, were immune to suffering by a preternatural gift from God. In spite of this, Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command in the garden of Eden. If human beings never suffered, would they ever think of God their creator? They even might consider that they are god if they never suffered and lived eternally on earth as some men of old thought they were god such as the pharoahs of Egypt. Human beings are more prone to seek God in times of adversity than in times of prosperity. This is why crosses sent us by the Lord are actually blessings as it is written:
For in fire gold is tested,
and the chosen, in the crucible of humiliation. (Sirach 2:5).

And in 1 Peter 1:6-7:
In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Bradski]

I certainly would give my life gladly, not only for my children but for “strangers” as well.

Then I wonder what could be holding you up. There are people literally dying in the States right now that need transplants. Over 120,000 needing hearts, livers, kidneys. Children included. Eighteen people die each day for want of a transplant. Maybe a child near where you live.

You could arrange it so that you didn’t even have to sacrifice yourself completely. And I doubt they’d let you anyway. So why not just donate a kidney. It will save someone’s life and you’ll still have one yourself. Here’s the web page: donatelife.net/

But that’s not going to work, is it. I’m not exactly sure what your reasons would be for not donating, but they’d probably be the same as all the millions of other Christians in the States. Which would be the same as mine. That is: I’d like to keep all my bits and pieces just as they are – unless a close family member needs a transplant and then I’d be first in the queue.

So far from this concept of self-sacrifice being a recognised part of the Christian ethos, what we actually find is that not only are people not prepared to give up themselves completely for others but they are very reluctant indeed to give up any part at all.

Of course, if you are reading this with an intravenous drip in your arm having just saved a child’s life, then I apologise profusely. Otherwise you’ll have to excuse me if I take your comments with a pinch of salt.

 

[Tony109]

To answer the long going question of why every time some terrible thing strikes, you have to have a idea how God has some sort of system in place, the problem is the Old Testament is not literal but a method to make people understand the meaning of what God wants us to know, it has to be simple so everybody gets the message, the message of Adam and Eve is you pay now for your sins, when Moses gave the ten commandments he said let these be for you a Blessing or a curse, now we know God does no harm, it was set up for Satan to hate us and he has authority to harm us when we commit sin, the Bible has interpreted the Greek word as exorcism when it should read deliverance. The woman who was suffering for 18 years because of Satan was because he had authority because of some sin she committed or someone related to her committed, there are actually many ways this could happen. Your mistaken if you think this changed with the New Testament, I was delivered from a curse from taking lava rock from a cursed volcano in Hawaii, this can be easily checked out. Releasing those in bondage is not about prison its about sin. A child still in the womb can acquire problems from what the mother does.

The problem is if you commit a sin after baptism and before conformation God can not hear you, which is why the Blessed Mother and the Saints have the ability to hear us and intercede.  I believe God is trying every which way to help us which is why some people receive healing and other miracles which sometimes makes it confusing.  It is said that God does not see evil, I gather he can not hear evil people either, I know you say God knows all things, but you have to know the facts and not try to figure how or why, His system is bigger that we can understand.  The reason Jesus healed everyone who asked is because he had a human side which was cable of hearing us and the Divine side did the healing, this is just my theory, I may not be accurate but I had a full deliverance which is the removal of the effects of sin which the devil does because we are in a war and the enemy cuts off our communication line to God.  You would not believe what happen next, it appeared communication was restored as it was like is was for people in the first century.  I have absolutely no one to help me figure out what to do next as no one has heard of the things that happened to me.

You must read up on Spiritual Warfare to know how sin effects us and how to remove it, Spirit Daily has many books on this subject.  Most books are written by non-Catholics with direct experience.

There is an excellent video on youtube by Derek Prince called how to be delivered from demons / evil spirits, Prince is not Catholic so watch with caution his other sermons. 

When you understand how it all works everything falls in to place, everyone is suffering because of our sins.  I understand if you are not baptized and do not intend to Satan does not bother you, this is just my idea and I might be wrong.

 

[Amandil]

Then I wonder what could be holding you up. There are people literally dying in the States right now that need transplants. Over 120,000 needing hearts, livers, kidneys. Children included. Eighteen people die each day for want of a transplant. Maybe a child near where you live.

More fallacious reasoning, in this case the is-ought fallacy. E.g. if I did what you claim upon the presumption that I should gain heaven while ignoring God’s will in that I had a greater moral imperative to care for my family in my current healthy state I would in fact be sinning against God through disobedience.

Christ knew that His life would end on the cross at Calvary. That doesn’t necessarily mean that He ought to have marched up to the Jews and the Romans claiming that He was both God and King of the Jews.

And the shedding of bloid is not the only form of self-sacrifice.

Bradski:

So far from this concept of self-sacrifice being a recognised part of the Christian ethos, what we actually find is that not only are people not prepared to give up themselves completely for others but they are very reluctant indeed to give up any part at all.

Not only is this incorrect but terribly short-sighted and myopic.

I have yet to see any form of atheism outperform the charitable outreach of the Catholic Church throughout the world. The hudreds of thousands of man-hours spent by lay people and religious, the millions of dollars donated by the laity to support these activities, your assertion is woefully inadequate if not just plain dumb.

Bradski:

Of course, if you are reading this with an intravenous drip in your arm having just saved a child’s life, then I apologise profusely. Otherwise you’ll have to excuse me if I take your comments with a pinch of salt.

Ad-hominum. It appears sticking to the subject matter in an objective way is simply too difficult for you to manage.

 

[Bradski]

More fallacious reasoning, in this case the is-ought fallacy. E.g. if I did what you claim upon the presumption that I should gain heaven while ignoring God’s will in that I had a greater moral imperative to care for my family in my current healthy state I would in fact be sinning against God through disobedience.

Ad-hominum. It appears sticking to the subject matter in an objective way is simply too difficult for you to manage.

You seem to have picked up a few phrases here and there from posting in forums that you may think add greater depth to your posts. My comments re transplants were just that. Comments. So it is not correct to describe them as ‘fallacious reasoning’.

Similarly ‘is-ought fallacy’, which has nothing to do with my comments whatsoever and particularly ‘ad hominem’ which my comments weren’t. And, just in case you are tempted, neither are the comments I have made thus far.

You’d be better concentrating on what I am saying rather than looking to sprinkle your posts with philosophical bon mots.

But to continue, we do seem to be getting somewhere. You may have noticed that I asked earlier what were the criteria you may choose to decide whether to sacrifice yourself or not.

Would you donate all your organs and die in the process to save a few strangers? If not, what are the criteria you would us to make the decision?

And I gave one example of why I would not do it.

In fact, I’m sure my family would be mightily unimpressed if I swapped my life for another’s. Let’s face it, you have a responsibility to them as well as to yourself and I’d say that trumps all other considerations.

You thought the question irrelevant:

Why are the “circumstances” so important? We don’t get to choose the circumstances, we simply accept them in faith. So the question really is irrelevant.

And absurd:

It’s an absurd question…

And old Tony thought it worth a passing sarcastic comment. But now…

…in that I had a greater moral imperative to care for my family in my current healthy state I would in fact be sinning against God through disobedience.

So you have the same reason and I do! Or at least one of the reasons. Now I don’t know why this took so long to find out. So can we now say that sacrificing oneself is good except when you have to consider one’s family? So that it’s not OK in all circumstances? In fact, as most of us have families that rely on us, it would be most definitely not OK in most circumstances? In fact ‘sinning against God’ as you put it so well.

And the shedding of bloid is not the only form of self-sacrifice.

But it’s the only one we are talking about. Sacrificing one’s life (unless you are healthy and have a family). Seems like it’s the unhealthy people with no loved ones that have to do the hard yards for the rest of us.

 

[Amandil]

You seem to have picked up a few phrases here and there from posting in forums that you may think add greater depth to your posts. My comments re transplants were just that. Comments. So it is not correct to describe them as ‘fallacious reasoning’.

Similarly ‘is-ought fallacy’, which has nothing to do with my comments whatsoever and particularly ‘ad hominem’ which my comments weren’t. And, just in case you are tempted, neither are the comments I have made thus far.

You’d be better concentrating on what I am saying rather than looking to sprinkle your posts with philosophical bon mots.

You seem to have quite the penchant for editorializing unnecessarily.

There’s something to be said about someone who loves overmuch the sound of his own voice.

Bradski:

So you have the same reason and I do! Or at least one of the reasons. Now I don’t know why this took so long to find out. So can we now say that sacrificing oneself is good except when you have to consider one’s family? So that it’s not OK in all circumstances? In fact, as most of us have families that rely on us, it would be most definitely not OK in most circumstances? In fact ‘sinning against God’ as you put it so well.

Strawman.

Bradski:

But it’s the only one we are talking about. Sacrificing one’s life (unless you are healthy and have a family). Seems like it’s the unhealthy people with no loved ones that have to do the hard yards for the rest of us.

More editorializing.

Since you’re now making it a habit of apparently distorting things which we have said to make disengenuous points I’m going to bid you adieu.

God bless.

 

[Bradski]

Since you’re now making it a habit of apparently distorting things which we have said…

Distorting? And there’s me thinking I’d actually quoted what you’d said verbatim.

 

[tonyrey]

Sure I can. And I did. I would do it myself. I said I would give my life for my children. I think almost anyone would for their own children. But…that is not what you have been talking about. You have said that it’s a good thing to give your life up for a stranger. This is what Christians do, as opposed to atheists for example.

But all I’m getting are examples of other people doing it. No-one, it would appear, wants to hold their hand up and say: Yes, it’s a good thing, a Christian thing, and *I *would do it.

Can you not see why I’m not the slightest bit convinced by what you are telling me?

There are many examples throughout history of both atheists and Christians (and others) sacrificing their lives for others to whom they are not related…

BTW Is it purely by chance that life is refreshing?

 

[Amandil]

It’s a common tactic by moral relativists/subjectivists to insist that their opponents (in this case the theist who holds to objective morality) must be an absolutist.

It’s a similar tactic here used by “Bradski”: get the theist to admit to some moral aspect of his religion (hardly matters which one), then make the charge that since he is not doing that at all times and in all cases then he must be a hypocrite and his religion therefore is ridiculous.

The same follows from his attempt at using the apparent suffering of animals.

I used this at least a dozen times or more when I was an atheist.

Of course it is a strawman, Bradski is obviously ignorant as to what the Church teaches regarding objective morality and so he creates a distorted picture of the Church’s teaching and attacks the distortion.

 

[ajecphotos]

How can an atheist be able to spout what he does on a ‘Catholic’ forum? A forum that at the heart of it has the love of God and the faith in his undying mercy?

 

[MickeyZ]

Thanks BackHand for this thread. I have some of the same problems as you do with people’s attempts to explain. I can understand, though it’s a real stretch, how one might associate free will with the presence or absence of all pain, suffering, earthquakes and whatever other unpleasantries one might experience. Trishie mentions genetics as the cause of some health issues in her family. I’m thinking she’s referencing the mating of close relatives causing these illnesses and it all makes sense. I sometimes wonder how we survived the Adam & Eve thing. Maybe we didn’t. Where Trishie writes “accidents are a consequence of a set of choices, etc.”, it tends to make sense but are we blaming choices made generations ago for what we’re experiencing now? Maybe we should and maybe we need to make better choices to undo the effects of those bad choices of our ancestors. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and the like need further explanation. Certainly if we continue sucking billions of gallons of oil out of the planet we’re going to cause more than sinkholes.
Tonerey suggests God’s prevention of misfortunes would defeat the purpose of creating an “orderly” universe. I’m not sure what “orderly” means and I’m not at all sure if that was God’s intention. The mention of an earthly utopia, IMHO, is an oxymoron. I completely agree we need to earn what we get and a “free lunch” should only be available to those who have no other way of getting it, despite their good choices and efforts.
According to po18guy “Morals” is a human concept and doesn’t apply to the Creator. Boy, I really have a problem with separating the Creator from human values. Isn’t that where Jesus came into the picture? I thing Ed agrees.
KingCoil, though I agree with most of your writings, I see Christianity and the believing in God as two different concepts. I got very excited when you started a paragraph with the words “Very simple”. I thought, “Wow, does this person really know the answer?” Well, maybe not. Why does anyone think God created this world to be all good and beautiful? What did its inhabitants do to deserve that? And why would that God punish all humans after Adam & Eve for the bad choice that first couple made? Were they not given choice, free will? And where did that serpent come from? I will stay with you KingCoil to learn your secret but I just can’t accept that we are where we are because a human being with free will chose to grab an apple from a tree that was considered “off limits”.
You guys are thinkers and I feel so fortunate to read your thoughts. I have my own but I’m nowhere near saying, “the reason is…….” followed by some meaningful revelation. Believing in God is a no brainer. He/She created everything. There’s so much physical beauty on this planet and I wonder if God created it because we would enjoy it or did God create us to enjoy the physical beauty He/She created. We say God is all loving and all just. I’m sure God is but we’re only human and our definitions of loving and just are only human interpretations of things we consider good. Just as God created everything, all things are possible. There’s a reason for everything just not always available to us. Sometimes the reason doesn’t make sense to us but that’s because we’re only us. Some spend most of their time accepting whatever happens and singing praise to the Lord. Some kneel for hours in “adoration” of the Creator. Does God need to be praised or adored by us? God is God, the Supreme Being, creator of all things, some more complex than us mortal humans. God needs nothing from us. We need what God has allowed us to be for ourselves and for others. I believe we’ll get what we deserve but we might not understand when it’s happening. The thoughts of eternal utopia is neat but I wonder if I really would deserve that. Why? Just because I kept the commandments. Because I went to Mass as required? On the other hand I think burning in hell for eternity might be a little much for the stupidity I might have demonstrated.
It’s so much bigger than I am capable of understanding. All I know for sure, I think, is it feels good to be good. It feels real good to be good for someone else. Stuff happens because God allows it to happen and we have choices as to how we deal with it.
Not sure I made any sense here but thanks for the opportunity.
Michael A

 

[Amandil]

MickeyZ:

And why would that God punish all humans after Adam & Eve for the bad choice that first couple made?

You’re looking at it incorrectly. Adam and Eve’s punishment from God was banishment from Eden, exile.

Original Sin is our punishment from Adam and Eve, spiritual death is our inheritance, just as a baby born from a mother addicted to cocaine is also addicted.

You ought to be thankful for Original Sin, for it is the only reason why salvation is open to any of us through Christ, because the spiritual death we inherited from Adam and Eve is not explicitly our fault, we are not directly culpable, despite the fact that we all are sinners and sin after the same trespass as Adam and Eve did.

 

[MickeyZ]

I’m sorry Amandil, I’m not thankful for Original Sin, I don’t know if I even understand it and I certainly don’t understand how Original Sin could be the reason for salvation. Further, I don’t understand what you mean by us all sinning after the same trespass as Adam and Eve did. I respect your (name removed by moderator)ut and guess I’m just thinking differently from you.
Respectfully,
Michael A