Is The Big Bang Really Proof Of Gods Existence?

[itinerant1]

In other words, value statements have no truth content to them.

I think that morality is a series of value statements. They express, not truth, but values. When I say, “it’s good to share your things with friends,” I mean, “My values lead me to conclude that sharing things with friends is something I really, really like.” There’s nothing inherent about sharing things with my friends that makes it “good,” just like there’s nothing inherent about apples that makes them “taste good.”

Does that clear up the confusion? Your question doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, so let me know if you need more clarification.

Your confused ideas clear up nothing. You conflate personal taste, even physical taste, with moral judgments. It doesn’t get any more confused than that.

Statements of fact are subject to verification regarding their truth or falsity. Moral judgments are subject to verification as to their truth or falsity, as well, yet in a radically different way than are statements of facts.

 

[James_Least]

How do you know that “not many cosmologists” diligently seek Him? Who appointed you a judge over souls? Since when has it been a sin to seek to understand God’s creation?

Albert Einstein discovered an intelligence higher than his own. He never confessed Jesus as personal saviour. This is a fatal error in the salvation of the soul. There is no other name in heaven or on earth whereby we must be saved. See John 14.6.

Jesus will judge. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. Cosmology changes every time man makes a better telescope. The Word of God never changes. Man has difficulty with the fact that he is clay and God is potter. We keep wanting to be gods. This will never happen.

The sin is unbelief–not believing the Only Begotten Son of God. All of this is completely off the cosmologist’s radar screen–and an aberration in his telescope.

Without faith it is impossible to please Him.

Shalom,

James Least

 

[itinerant1]

Albert Einstein discovered an intelligence higher than his own. He never confessed Jesus as personal saviour. This is a fatal error in the salvation of the soul. There is no other name in heaven or on earth whereby we must be saved. See John 14.6.

Jesus will judge. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. Cosmology changes every time man makes a better telescope. The Word of God never changes. Man has difficulty with the fact that he is clay and God is potter. We keep wanting to be gods. This will never happen.

The sin is unbelief–not believing the Only Begotten Son of God. All of this is completely off the cosmologist’s radar screen–and an aberration in his telescope.

Without faith it is impossible to please Him.

Shalom,

James Least

We cannot know what becomes of others such as Einstein, or any body else. That’s strictly God’s business.

But what does all of this have to do with science or the study of the cosmos? Even the Church has the esteemed Pontifical Academy of Science and its own observatories. Some of the greatest contributors to science have been Catholics such as Fr. Gregor Johann Mendel, Louis Pasteur, and Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, just to mention a few. I guess I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

 

[James_Least]

The point is: We spend an absurd amount of time contemplating our navels and gazing at the cosmos. Our scopes should be focussed on the cosmology at Golgotha and the emply tomb.

Selah,

James Least

 

[itinerant1]

The point is: We spend an absurd amount of time contemplating our navels and gazing at the cosmos. Our scopes should be focussed on the cosmology at Golgotha and the emply tomb.

Selah,

James Least

That just means human pursuits should have priorities and be properly ordered. Jesus first. And we can only read about the life of Christ because people spent a lot of time inventing printing, and you can discuss your views about Christ on the internet because an awful lot of people spent time inventing and improving computers and internet connectivity.

You can’t make sweeping judgments or generalizations about scientific pursuits and be saying anything useful. Scientific endeavors need not even have any practical value for it to be worthwhile. As Aristotle said, “Man by nature desires to know.” God created man with a desire to know. There are many things worth knowing just for the sake of knowing.

Some people have a God given ability for natural science. Are you going to argue with God about that?

Some scientists I’m sure, escape from the big existential questions by immersing themselves in science, but that does not justify your making sweeping generalizations about scientists spending too much time studying the cosmos.

 

[KyivAndrew]

There’s a difference between a factual statement and a statement of values.
The difference is that factual statements can be investigated and determined to be true or false; but a statement of values isn’t a statement that is true or false. Apples don’t objectively “taste good.” The phrase “taste good” is a value judgment that we make when we taste apples.

In other words, value statements have no truth content to them.

I think that morality is a series of value statements. They express, not truth, but values. When I say, “it’s good to share your things with friends,” I mean, “My values lead me to conclude that sharing things with friends is something I really, really like.” There’s nothing inherent about sharing things with my friends that makes it “good,” just like there’s nothing inherent about apples that makes them “taste good.”

Well O.K. and, you’ll forgive me, let’s be blunt then. When a hypothetical sadist friend says that “it’s good to go over tonight to AntiTheist’s home and to bludgeon him to death and rape that cute female in his family,” what the friend really means is that “His values lead him to conclude that killing and raping AntiTheist and family is something he really, really likes” and that there is nothing inherently good or bad about killing and raping AntiTheist and his family members that makes it “good” or bad" just like there “there’s nothing inherent about apples that makes them taste good”.

This would seem to be the logical description of your view of Amorality.

So, since value statements have no truth content to them, the Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill has no truth, the Prohibition on Genocide has no truth content; it’s all about relative value statements. How can one say Truthfully that Genocide is wrong? In AntiT’s world they cannot I assume because Truth has no place in Morality, oops I mean value statements.

 

[James_Least]

That just means human pursuits should have priorities and be properly ordered. Jesus first. And we can only read about the life of Christ because people spent a lot of time inventing printing, and you can discuss your views about Christ on the internet because an awful lot of people spent time inventing and improving computers and internet connectivity.

You can’t make sweeping judgments or generalizations about scientific pursuits and be saying anything useful. Scientific endeavors need not even have any practical value for it to be worthwhile. As Aristotle said, “Man by nature desires to know.” God created man with a desire to know. There are many things worth knowing just for the sake of knowing.

Some people have a God given ability for natural science. Are you going to argue with God about that?

Some scientists I’m sure, escape from the big existential questions by immersing themselves in science, but that does not justify your making sweeping generalizations about scientists spending too much time studying the cosmos.

Jesus first–exactly. God in the flesh. Consider the possibility of: science and pseudo-science. Consider: undefiled religion and the religion of science(so-called), aka: evolution. Throw in some theistic evolution for good measure. All of these cannot be true. They could all be false. What is the standard? Conclusions of depraved man based on unnecessary inference–or the unadulterated Word of God–long before Guttenburg. Curiously, the first book off the press was The Word of God. Wycliffe and Tyndale were persecuted to death for having tranlated the Word of God into the common vernacular. Who was it who gathered English Bibles and burned them–and their translators? The Prince of the Power of the Air?

God is still the potter–we are the clay. Where are the Soil Scientists? They may be debating the Soul Scientists. Read the end of the Book–the Soul Scientists win.

Selah,

James Least

 

[itinerant1]

Jesus first–exactly. God in the flesh. Consider the possibility of: science and pseudo-science. Consider: undefiled religion and the religion of science(so-called), aka: evolution. Throw in some theistic evolution for good measure. All of these cannot be true. They could all be false. What is the standard? Conclusions of depraved man based on unnecessary inference–or the unadulterated Word of God–long before Guttenburg.

The reason God gave man a mind is so that he would use it. If you used your God-given mind, to the best of your ability, to discover more truth, you may learn what about the things you listed above are true and what are false. As of now, as it appears from what you said, you have no idea which is which. Do you consider that a good thing?

Curiously, the first book off the press was The Word of God. Wycliffe and Tyndale were persecuted to death for having tranlated the Word of God into the common vernacular. Who was it who gathered English Bibles and burned them–and their translators? The Prince of the Power of the Air?

Your history is lacking if you are sure Gutenberg was the first to print Bibles. But that is a very common misunderstanding. Much in the way of the printing press must have already been invented prior to Gutenberg in order for him to have accomplished his printing of the Bibles. In fact, he may have only contributed the way to print ornate, colorful capitals. The history of the printing and distribution of Bibles is interesting, and there is much more to be learned and corrected on that subject. Protestants believe many things about the Catholic Church and the Bible that have no basis in historical fact. They should study more history.

God is still the potter–we are the clay. Where are the Soil Scientists? They may be debating the Soul Scientists. Read the end of the Book–the Soul Scientists win.

I have read the Bible cover to cover and still read it. Sacred doctrine (sacra doctrina) is the highest science because it treats of God. Even what little one may learn of this science is more noble than what is learned in all other sciences.

Even so, we should not discount all knowledge other than sacra doctrina. Consider carefully the following words from Orestes Brownson (1862), and then let me know what you think:

“No amount of pious training or pious culture will protect the faithful, or preserve them from the contamination of the age, if they are left inferior to non-Catholics in secular learning and intellectual development. The faithful must be guarded and protected by being trained and disciplined to grapple with the errors and false systems of the age. They must be not only more religiously, but also more intellectually educated. They must be better armed than their opponents,—surpass them in the strength and vigor of their minds, and in the extent and variety of their knowledge. They must, on all occasions and against all adversaries, be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them. (Catholic Polemics; Works 20)”

 

[James_Least]

Only one problem: my mind is as depraved as the rest of me. It needs daily renewing–in the Word of God, not the platitudes of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, etal who never really figured it out.
See Apostle Paul’s letter to the saints(alive and living) at Rome-- Romans, Chapter 1, vss. 15-32.

Shalom,

James Least

 

[itinerant1]

Only one problem: my mind is as depraved as the rest of me. It needs daily renewing–in the Word of God, not the platitudes of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, etal who never really figured it out.
See Apostle Paul’s letter to the saints(alive and living) at Rome-- Romans, Chapter 1, vss. 15-32.

Shalom,

James Least

As far as your mind being depraved, like you say, I would have to agree with you. Anyone who speaks about St. Augustine as you have lacks the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AntiTheist]

Matthias123:

To sum things up, we agree on almost everything.

We do, except for one thing. You agree that we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, and you also agree that just because something unlikely happened, it doesn’t make it more likely that intelligence made it happen.

Yet you think that a supernatural cause is the “best” explanation. I do not agree with this – I don’t think stories that haven’t been demonstrated are good explanations, any more than believing that pixies create the universe anew every second is a good explanation.

The difference in our “epistemology,” as you put it, comes down to the fact that you “accept revelation” and I don’t.

You’re right – I don’t see any good reason to accept the “revelation” of any revealed religion. Perhaps if you could provide one, we could discuss this further. If your reason for accepting revelation is primarily because of personal experiences that by their nature cannot be available to anyone else, then we have nothing further to discuss, and I wish you good day.

itinerant1:

Statements of fact are subject to verification regarding their truth or falsity. Moral judgments are subject to verification as to their truth or falsity, as well, yet in a radically different way than are statements of facts.

So you say, but you’re going to have a difficult time demonstrating that.

A factual statement, such as “That car is traveling at 55 miles per hour,” can easily be ascertained. No one can disagree with the evidence once it’s collected without ignoring it completely.

Value statements do not admit to such scrutiny. “Apples taste good” or “Brussel sprouts taste good” are statements that do not have truth values. The same with statements like “sitcoms are funny” or “rap music is good” or “Milton was a great poet.”

No one can get out a tool and measure how objectively funny a given sitcom is, nor can one measure the quality of rap music objectively, nor can one objectiely rank Milton in terms of greatness. All of those are subjective statements that are expressions of values.

They’re not false statements, but they’re not true statements, either. They’re expressions of the values of the person uttering them.

The same is true with morals. One society considers eating a cow to be a grave moral offense; another society sets up fast food joints that serve cows non-stop. One society sets the age of sexual consent at 18; other societies set that age as low as 16, or even 13. One society permits the murder of individuals who have comitted murder; other societies outlaw all murder, even the retribution of society.

The only agreement societies have on codes of conduct seems to be the bare necessities that you logically need to have a civilized society: no stealing and no killing (and even these are up for grabs: the ancient Hebrews had laws that permitted one to beat a slave to death, provided that the slave didn’t die for a few days; and “stealing” has always been the right of aristocracy, down to the right of medieval kings to sleep with brides on their wedding nights before the husband).

And individuals, who can form individual value judgments that differ from society, make things even more complicated, obviously.

Who’s “right”? Who’s got the “correct” age of sexual consent? Who’s “correct” about eating cows?

Who’s correct about whether apples taste good? Who’s correct about whether that weird piece of art qualifies as “beautiful”?

I’d be interested to hear how you plan on verifying moral judgments.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1:
So you say, but you’re going to have a difficult time demonstrating that.

I never had difficulty before demonstrating it, so why would I now? However, I will put off a full discussion and give you an idea how moral judgments are determined to be true or false. The more one understands of basic human nature the easier it is for them to understand the basis of objective moral values.

There are unchangeable laws governing human nature. For example, certain things are required for the life and health of the body. For example, food, shelter and breathable air are basic needs we cannot do without for very long. We have psychological needs as well. We need to receive and express love, for instance. A total deprivation would result in a “deformed” psyche and possibly worse.

Now are there many things we want but are not fundamental needs. We may want to see a particular movie, but no one “needs” to see a particular movie. No one will die without seeing it (unless they are a testy teenager). I won’t be discussing “wants” at this time.

Whenever we deliberately act in accordance with our nature, to its objective benefit, that is a moral act. Eating good food is actually a morally good act. On the other hand, eating too much food is harmful to the body and can be, therefore, an immoral act. The habit of overeating is called gluttony. Gluttony is objectively bad. It’s not just a matter of personal taste that one thinks that gluttony leading to morbid obesity can be morally bad.

Now if the glutton steals all of the food from his neighbor so that his neighbor dies of starvation, he has wrongfully deprived his neighbor of a fundamental need. Hence, except in the case of sociopaths, every normal person thinks the glutton has committed acts that are morally wrong in an objective sense. This judgement can be verified as true or false.

In fact, when the town constable comes riding up on his horse to haul off the glutton for trial, the prosecutor will charge him with theft and homicide. The jury will decide on the evidence and so on. Now if the defense attorney claims that the glutton did nothing wrong because right and wrong are relative to the individual and there is no way to prove otherwise, the jury would have a hearty laugh, and the defense attorney would be fired for professional incompetence.

So, there is my brief introduction to morals.

 

[AntiTheist]

Whenever we deliberately act in accordance with our nature, to its objective benefit, that is a moral act.

By “nature” here, you’re talking about the “needs” you mention, correct? That which enables one to continue to exist?

So I could paraphrase your first moral postulate as: “A moral action is one that enables oneself to continue to exist and enables others to continue to exist.” Conversely, “An immoral action is one that deprives oneself or other humans of the potential to continue to exist.”

Here’s the problem: You’re trying to ground this in biology – apparently – and there’s no a priori reason (certainly no reason to be found in biology) why a person shouldn’t deprive another person of resources.

Take, for example, a scenario in which two groups of people are competing for the same limited resources that are necessary for survival. In order for one group to “fulfill its nature” and continue to exist, it is necessary to deprive the other group of the resources it needs to continue to exist. So naturally they’re going to fight – and the stronger group is going to win. There’s no right or wrong about it.

Come to think of it, there’s no a priori reason why one group shouldn’t snatch up all the resources even if there’s enough to go around.

Now you’re right that in a specific context – like, say, in the context of a society we’ve set up for the purpose of cooperative behavior, in which we set rules against theft and murder – a society would have good reason to punish someone for…uh, stealing all of someone’s food and thereby killing that person (what a bizarre example). But it’s not “objectively wrong” to take someone else’s food – it’s just a punishable offense in this particular society we’re talking about. And it’s punishable for good reason – in that context and that context alone.

There’s no cosmic import to stealing someone else’s food. All that matters is that the values of the constable (constable? lol) and the other citizens lead them to want a society where this kind of behavior is punished.

So on what grounds do you say that an individual should not deprive others of fundamental needs?

 

[Cecilianus]

Jesus first–exactly. God in the flesh. Consider the possibility of: science and pseudo-science. Consider: undefiled religion and the religion of science(so-called), aka: evolution. Throw in some theistic evolution for good measure. All of these cannot be true. They could all be false.

Evolution’s a scientific theory, not a religion - and who are you to call it pseudo-science? Are you a biologist?

Furthermore, there isn’t any conflict between evolution and religion. Seven-day creationism was generally rejected by Christians in the early Church (because it conflicted with Platonism) and during the medieval period (because it conflicted with Aristotelianism); medieval exegesis always interpreted Genesis according to the spiritual senses (see, for example, Henri de Lubac’s excellent study “Medieval Exegesis”).

The literalistic way of reading the Bible dates only as far back as Luther and Ussher, where it expressed itself primarily as a virulent rejection of heliocentrism - a state I hope you would not want to go back to?

What is the standard? Conclusions of depraved man based on unnecessary inference–or the unadulterated Word of God–long before Guttenburg. Curiously, the first book off the press was The Word of God. Wycliffe and Tyndale were persecuted to death for having tranlated the Word of God into the common vernacular. Who was it who gathered English Bibles and burned them–and their translators? The Prince of the Power of the Air?

Couple of historical notes - (1) Gutenberg was Catholic printing a Catholic Bible, so I don’t understand why whether he was the first to print Scripture should become a matter of debate between Catholic/Protestant.

(2) There were literally dozens of English translations of Scripture - starting with early Anglo-Saxon dialects and continuing on to various forms of Middle English (not all of which were mutually comprehensible) well before Wycliffe and Tyndale; the same is true of German Bibles before Luther’s (I can’t remember the exact number, but I’m pretty sure it was over a dozen for the German translations). If you want more precision any of the apologists here can tell you. Wycliffe’s and Tyndale’s Bibles were banned because they contained serious errors, not because they were in the vernacular - and the Church could do no less, out of respect for Sacred Scripture. Would you want heresies and mistranslations falsely paraded as the Word of God?

God is still the potter–we are the clay. Where are the Soil Scientists? They may be debating the Soul Scientists. Read the end of the Book–the Soul Scientists win.

Selah,

James Least

But they’re not debating the Soul Scientists. They have different fields, different disciplines, different objects of study.

 

[AntiTheist]

Oh, I forgot to address this:

It’s not just a matter of personal taste that one thinks that gluttony leading to morbid obesity can be morally bad.

Well, there are certain things that are objectively unhealthy – smoking, for example, or living in an urban environment with a lot of pollution or overeating or having unprotected sex.

But again, there’s no a priori reason why someone shouldn’t perform an unhealthy act.

Let’s use gluttony as an example. If someone enjoys eating a lot and doesn’t care about the unhealthy effects of eating a lot, then why should a person not? You can’t sensibly respond “because it’s bad” (begging the question) or “because it’s unhealthy” (irrelevant in the context of someone who doesn’t care).

In other words, if an act has good effects on part of the person (his taste buds and probably his mind, in this case) and bad effects on another part of the person (his long term health, particularly the heart, in this case), on what grounds do you say that a person shouldn’t do it? You’re making a value judgment – that valuing long term health is “better” than short-term pleasure. Not everyone would make that value judgment.

 

[itinerant1]

By “nature” here, you’re talking about the “needs” you mention, correct? That which enables one to continue to exist?

So I could paraphrase your first moral postulate as: “A moral action is one that enables oneself to continue to exist and enables others to continue to exist.” Conversely, “An immoral action is one that deprives oneself or other humans of the potential to continue to exist.”

Here’s the problem: You’re trying to ground this in biology – apparently – and there’s no a priori reason (certainly no reason to be found in biology) why a person shouldn’t deprive another person of resources.

Man is not his biology. Remember that I talked about higher aspects of human nature, such as the need to give and receive love. So, the reductionist approach doesn’t fly.

Take, for example, a scenario in which two groups of people are competing for the same limited resources that are necessary for survival. In order for one group to “fulfill its nature” and continue to exist, it is necessary to deprive the other group of the resources it needs to continue to exist. So naturally they’re going to fight – and the stronger group is going to win. There’s no right or wrong about it.

Survival, if it actually pertains to life and death, since it involves human acts necessarily involves moral acts. However, there may be mitigating circumstances as regards subjective inculcation of moral guilt. So, it does not follow that such a situation is necessarily amoral.

Come to think of it, there’s no a priori reason why one group shouldn’t snatch up all the resources even if there’s enough to go around.

There is a prohibiting reason, a posteriori, based on human nature again. Deliberately harming another person, except in cases where it can be reasonably justified such as acts of self-defense, deserves moral condemnation.

Now you’re right that in a specific context – like, say, in the context of a society we’ve set up for the purpose of cooperative behavior, in which we set rules against theft and murder – a society would have good reason to punish someone for…uh, stealing all of someone’s food and thereby killing that person (what a bizarre example). But it’s not “objectively wrong” to take someone else’s food – it’s just a punishable offense in this particular society we’re talking about. And it’s punishable for good reason – in that context and that context alone.

The fact that it is objectively wrong is derived from the intrinsic dignity of the human person. If one does not recognize the value of persons, then human cannibalism, for instance, is no more immoral in that person’s view than is a chimpanzee holding a small monkey, ripping its flesh from its bones and eating it while the monkey screams in agony.

There’s no cosmic import to stealing someone else’s food. All that matters is that the values of the constable (constable? lol) and the other citizens lead them to want a society where this kind of behavior is punished.

You would think very differently about the situation if all of your food was stolen and you were left to die a slow painful death of starvation.

So on what grounds do you say that an individual should not deprive others of fundamental needs?

The intrinsic dignity of human persons, which is the same in theists and anti-theists.

 

[itinerant1]

It seems we have gotten far off the topic of the Big Bang…

 

[AntiTheist]

Deliberately harming another person, except in cases where it can be reasonably justified such as acts of self-defense, deserves moral condemnation. …] The intrinsic dignity of human persons

Ah, here we go. Here’s your claim, which you were trying to obscure by talking about “survival” in your other post.

You assert that there is some objective “human dignity” that must be respected and that it’s wrong to harm others. Where does this dignity come from? I contend that there is no such objective dignity – that the only “human dignity” that exists is that which we project onto others because we value the idea of the human as worthy of respect. That is to say, our idea of “human dignity” is a statement of values.

Other societies have different ideas of human dignity that reflect their values. Take the ancient Hebrews, for example, who held slaves. Their notion of “human dignity” included owning other people as property, something the values of people today in our society would detest.

You, no doubt, will ground your belief in “human dignity” in the belief that a god made humanity, a faith-based position that has never been demonstrated, which brings me back to the point that you will have a “tough time demonstrating” your belief that morality is objective.

You would think very differently about the situation if all of your food was stolen and you were left to die a slow painful death of starvation.

Yes, I imagine I would. But what I think doesn’t have an effect on reality. The fact that I really, really dislike the idea of anyone starving to death doesn’t change the fact that my dislike is a statement of values and not some perception of some cosmic rule that no one can demonstrate.

If you think you can demonstrate this “objective human dignity” without appealing to emotion or faith (accepting claims without evidence), I’d be interested in hearing you try.

 

[itinerant1]

Ah, here we go. Here’s your claim, which you were trying to obscure by talking about “survival” in your other post.

There you go, trying to obscure what I said by calling it obscure. There’s a word for people who evade by using that tactic. I’ll remember that word shortly.

We find practices in other societies and in past times, such as chattel slavery, that we now object to and believe we have made some genuine moral progress, at least in certain respects. In your view, however, the abolition of slavery appears not to be moral progress, but just a different standard for a different time and people.

Likewise, you have no objective moral standard by which you can say that Nazi pogroms and the Stalinist pogroms were morally wrong. All you can say is that you don’t approve, like some movie you didn’t like (I’m assuming you don’t approve of genocide). It’s all a matter of individual taste, and Stalin found it very much to his liking to starve to death 15 million Ukranians. Oh well. It was nothing. Just a Communist thing, you know.

My view on the other hand, is based on the natural moral law, a concept that is found in ancient Greece, the Stoic philosophers, Cicero, and many other great thinkers, as well as in the Christian tradition. Have you ever considered the writings of great thinkers on the natural law. Natural law awareness is also found in the Far East, as well, i.e. Confucius etc.

In addition to the natural law as the objective foundation of morals, there are also strictly philosophical arguments regarding the nature of man as comprised of a body and spiritual soul. Are you familiar with the proofs for the spiritual soul, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophers?

You will need to demonstrate some background in these matter in order to delve deeper into the issues of morality. And this should be really be done in a new thread since it is off topic here. The only possible relevance to this thread is that I will leave you, as I now must, swirling in a cloud of cosmic dust.

 

[James_Least]

As far as your mind being depraved, like you say, I would have to agree with you. Anyone who speaks about St. Augustine as you have lacks the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

In your judgement, what would you say I should do about my depravity?

I pray daily; worship God in Spirit and in Truth, give to the poor including orphans and widows, and those in prison;. give tithes and offerings; study Scripture; hold Bible studies; reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine, hunger and thirst for righteousness.

What say you?

Have a blessed day,

James Least