The Virgin Mary

[apophasis]

That’s not true. One need only look into the Greek to begin to truly understand that the Immaculate Conception is indeed taught in the Word of God. The very term “full of grace” is all one needs understand to see this teaching in the Gospel.You mean all one needs to understand the dogma of your church. Neither the Greek text or the context states anything about Mary’s birth.

In fact, there is far more scriptural support for the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary than there is for any of the fundamental new winds of doctrines of men that has become modern Protestantism.

 

[Good_Fella]

Popes and the college of bishops cannot introduce new revelation, which is what the Marian dogmas are. They were not taught by the Apostles and were formed based on personal beliefs and opinions of certain men.They have no authority to introduce new revelation.

Apophasis, you prejudicially wish to believe that the doctrines of the Catholic Church, such as our Marian doctrines, are the product of presonal beliefs and opinions of certain men. If that were true, there would not be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I told you that it is evident where false opinions lie: in a divided Protestant house. The Magisterium does not create new revelation as do the numerous leaders of the Protestant sects, who can’t manage to agree with each other on many essential doctrines. Your tradition is infested with heresies. The Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church makes ‘explicit’ what is ‘implicit’ in the scriptures. You just refuse to accept that truth without any scriptural basis.

That verse states nothing about Mary’s conception. The context is not about Mary’s conception but the One she herself is about to conceive - therefore the angel addresses her as "favored one."You’ve got to be kidding me!!! Right? The more you exalt Mary the less you’ll be able to grasp what redemption truly is. The work of our redemption has nothing to do with Mary - it’s all the work of Christ (Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18; Heb. 9:15).

Apophasis, your private fallible interpretation of Luke 1:28 is erroneous. Catholic scholars have already soundly refuted Protestant objections concerning this verse. Why dig up a corpse? If Mary had said “no” to God in the Annunciation, our Saviour would not have entered the world. Gos does not force himself on us. Your relationship with God is Master-slave. Our free will plays a vital role in our redemption. Spare me the smoke screen with all those verses you wish to shape according to your own bias.

Nice spin on this passage! But verse 14 gives you the context of Christ’s words:"He shall glorify Me;"IOW, He’s not talking about Mary at all. The Spirit came to glorify Christ.

Apophasis,Jesus is referring to all the implicit truths that are going to become explicit doctrines by the Apostolic teaching authority of the Church, these doctrines “include” eternal truths about Mary. Christ is glorified in the truth. You are slow to understand or refuse to see the true meaning of this passage.

“What is to come” is in reference to this church age and prophetic events surrounding Christ’s return: Prophecy. These we find written and preserved in the Epistles. Mary’s birth was of the past and has nothing to do with “what is to come.” Your interpretation is totally out of context.Fine. But please get back with me bearing proof. Don’t just regurgitate Catholic dogma. I’m asking for PROOF please.

Apophasis, her historical birth is of the past. What the Holy Spirit continues to teach us through the Apostolic authority of the significance of Mary, for instance, in God’s plan of salvation is of the present moment: the life of the Church until the end of time. There is no sense for you to ask for proof when you reject it anyway. The Catholic Church does not take Scripture out of context. You do. I’ll get back to you on the question of original sin relative to Mary’s redemption. It appears you have no idea what original sin actually is. You should start listening to the Catholic Church.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Popes and the college of bishops cannot introduce new revelation, which is what the Marian dogmas are. They were not taught by the Apostles and were formed based on personal beliefs and opinions of certain men.

The popes and bishops have NEVER introduced “new revelation.”
It is your bigoted opinion that our Marian doctrines are new revelation. Your opinion, and nothing more.

Our Marian doctrines are not whims formed on the personal beliefs and opinions of certain men. What nonsense.
The Bible and the Apostolic Oral tradition contain all Divine Revelation. Not all of the teachings of the bible are explicitly developed fully in the Bible. Our Marian doctrines are the result of long and careful, prayerful study of both the scriptures and the patristic tradition of Mary’s Godgiven all-holiness, by the teaching authorities of the Church, as well as debates and discussions by theologians and informed laymen, all contributing together.

We knew she was considered by God holy enough and trustworthy enough to not only conceive and bear, but raise, teach, and command God the Son of God from infancy to adulthood. That is no mean feat, and no ordinary woman would have been chosen for it as she, being a plain ordinary sinner would have been unable to fulfill her duties to God the Son of God and could have even provided a spiritually-poisonous environment for him to be nurtured in from infancy. Kecharitomene, which is how Gabriel addressed Mary, does NOT mean merely “favored one,” but means a person who has been and remains thoroughly filled to the brim with Divine Grace. “Favored one” falls far short of the meaning of Kecharitomene.

The prophecy of the Woman and her Seed provided the Church very much food for prayerful thought, reflection, and study for many centuries. Theologians, priests, bishops and popes delved into all these data in great, prayerful depth. You cheapen our Faith when you wickedly assert that it is based on the personal opinions of some people, as if it were a matter of personal whim.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Axion]

Popes and the college of bishops cannot introduce new revelation, which is what the Marian dogmas are.

Where do you get the notion that Marian dogmas are Personal revelation from? The personal revelation of your pastor? The teachings on Mary have been held by the Church from the earliest times.

They were not taught by the Apostles and were formed based on personal beliefs and opinions of certain men.

More nonsense. Do you have some as yet unknown document that contains all the teachings of the Apostles? I didn’t think so. You are relying on nothing but your own theorising, based on nothing more than the lately developed prejudices of some schismatic group in the US.

That verse states nothing about Mary’s conception. The context is not about Mary’s conception but the One she herself is about to conceive - therefore the angel addresses her as "favored one.

" WRONG. This what comes of basing theology on poor, and motivated translations. The angel says KECHARITOMENE, which means “one perfectly endowed with Grace.” Grace is the antidote to sin. One full of Grace is inevitably without sin.

 

[Good_Fella]

Now the RC doctrine of Mary is quite different. Rather than God “overlooking” sins until the substitutional, sacrificial work of Christ on the cross, it’s taught (without any proof) that Mary was prevented from being born with “original sin” and from actual sins throughout her life…Mary then was never in need of the application of Christ’s merits. She cannot be a partaker of His redemptive work. No redemption is required when there is no sin from which to be redeemed.

However, the Biblical FACT that Mary calls the Lord her savior reveals that Scripture and Rome are at odds regarding Mary.

You claim that “no redemption is required where there is no sin from which to be redeemed.” What is the basis of your abstract assertion? What you claim is not written in Scripture. You must prove that your baseless inference has scriptural support. But I wish you luck.

What you are essentially saying is that God is not so powerful as to be able to save someone before they fall. If a father saw his daughter about to fall in a pit, would he not reach out to save her from falling if he could? Why would he be obligated to let her fall and then help her after she did? There is no such law which obliges God not to save someone at the first moment of her existence so as to prevent original sin from doing its damage. Mary needed to be saved, but it makes no difference at what point in her life she was. She would have sinned if Christ had not saved her at the moment of her conception, so she is still redeemed by Christ. The Immaculate Conception is also a way God can save someone in Christ and through the merits of his death.

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES IT SAY THAT GOD IS OBLIGATED TO LET ANY HUMAN BEING FALL FIRST BEFORE HE SAVES HER? Provide your biblical sources!

Please note that according to the Catholic Faith MARY WAS NOT REDEEMED IN ADVANCE BUT AT THE FIRST MOMENT OF HER EXISTENCE. Redemption is not merely the absence of original sin: it is the effect of sanctifying grace: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The angel Gabriel greeted and addressed Mary with these words before she freely consented to bear the Son of God, so he is not referring to the child whom she would eventually conceive. Your understanding of the concept of original sin is at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church for the past hundreds of years on original sin.

By the Immaculate Conception, Mary was granted the supernatural gift of complete love for God, which amounts to absolute obedience to God, and which precludes all sin. Her life on earth reflected the life of the Elect in heaven, united to God in love and incapable of being disobedient to His will. Please read the verses 1 Jn 3:6; 5:3. Thus original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace - that which Adam and Eve had forfeited by their disobedience to God. Mary was preserved from this lack of sanctifying grace unlike the rest of us who must retrieve it at our baptism. By this sacrament of initiation we are saved as Mary was by the merits of Christ’s death. :extrahappy: But our baptism completely remedies only this second aspect of original sin: the lack of sanctifying grace. uch: We have not been freed from the first aspect of original sin: Flaw; nor have we been spared the third aspect of original sin: Imperfection. :doh2: Mary was preserved free from all three aspects of original sin, and so she remained sinless in perfect love and obedience to God for her entire life. :clapping:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[dessert]

Amen!

Thank You! Memorare…
Dessert

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis, you prejudicially wish to believe that the doctrines of the Catholic Church, such as our Marian doctrines, are the product of presonal beliefs and opinions of certain men. If that were true, there would not be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

GF, I’m not being prejudice when I ask for Apostolic proof for Rome’s assertions regarding Mary. I’m just being practical, even Biblical (Acts 17).

I told you that it is evident where false opinions lie: in a divided Protestant house.

Now that’s a sweeping, prejudicial statement.

The Magisterium does not create new revelation as do the numerous leaders of the Protestant sects

Such as?

who can’t manage to agree with each other on many essential doctrines.

Yet in my experience I’ve found agreement across most denominational lines regarding the essentials of salvation. Especially those which remain Biblically based.

Your tradition is infested with heresies.

Such as?

The Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church makes ‘explicit’ what is ‘implicit’ in the scriptures. You just refuse to accept that truth without any scriptural basis.

Or, what you call “implicit” is actually reading into Scripture that which is not there: eisegesis. Proper hermeneutics strives for an accurate exegesis of the text and avoids the former.

Apophasis, your private fallible interpretation of Luke 1:28 is erroneous. Catholic scholars have already soundly refuted Protestant objections concerning this verse. Why dig up a corpse?

It’s the ONLY verse RC apologists have to try to “Biblically” prove Mary’s IC. But neither the Greek text or the context will allow it. Ultimately RC apologists must make their appeal to post-Apostolic writings which obviously are neither Apostolic or theopneustos. My challenge (which so far has not been met) is for you to prove to me that the Marian assertions expressed in those writings have any kind of Apostolic connection. Unless you can they must be considered nothing more than the personal beliefs of each particular writer. A “private interpretation” (if you will) that Rome chose to accept as dogma.

If Mary had said “no” to God in the Annunciation, our Saviour would not have entered the world.

WOW!! IOW, all of divine redemption hinged on that one free will decision of one of God’s own creatures. Hence, God and all His creation is forever indebted to the permissive action of this one woman. No doubt the Son Himself must have stood in the wings with great anticipation, anxiously wondering if that woman would in fact give Him permission to take on humanity in order that God’s eternal plan of redemption might eventually come to pass. O my, O my, O my, let the Creator and all His creation bow low in eternal appreciation before her.

But the real truth is, GF, Mary responded with"Behold the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word."But according to your Marian perspective, it is God who became the bondslave of Mary. And you say my faith is “infested with heresies?”

There is no sense for you to ask for proof when you reject it anyway.

Well, when you provide me with the proof then you’ll know if I reject it or not.

The Catholic Church does not take Scripture out of context. You do.

Such as?

I’ll get back to you on the question of original sin relative to Mary’s redemption. It appears you have no idea what original sin actually is. You should start listening to the Catholic Church.

I’ve listened and I’ve read. According to Rome’s “tradition” Mary was divinely spared from being born with “original sin” (the mud puddle theory). It is then asserted that she remained sinless throughout her entire life. But based on this scenario there is no relevance between sin, Mary and redemption. Where there is no sin there is no need of redemption.

 

[apophasis]

Where do you get the notion that Marian dogmas are Personal revelation from? The personal revelation of your pastor? The teachings on Mary have been held by the Church from the earliest times.

I don’t quite understand your question. But as I’ve pointed out several times before, since the controversial Marian dogmas are not revealed in Scripture (I don’t mean reading them into Scripture) then they had to be divinely revealed to someone. Who? One cannot observe an immaculate conception or a sinless life. Such knowledge only God could possibly know. Therefore these things must be divinely revealed. So, to whom did God personally reveal Mary’s immaculate conception? Her perpetual sinlessness?

And as far as I know there is no record of an eyewitness to Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven. So I ask the same question: to whom was this event personally revealed?

When Paul was caught up to the third heaven he did not report seeing Mary’s heavenly coronation (or even Mary herself). So to whom did God personally reveal this heavenly event so that this bit of information about Mary could be passed down to us and received as Christian dogma?

We know they’re the personal beliefs of men today and in history, but to whom did God actually reveal these - impossible to know on our own - “facts” regarding Mary? Can you give me names?

All of you continue to assert your personal beliefs about Mary (as did those in history), but like those in history you provide no proof of divine revelation or Apostolic authority with your assertions. Until then, they can only remain personal beliefs. However, true Christianity is not built upon personal beliefs, but divine revelation.

The angel says KECHARITOMENE, which means “one perfectly endowed with Grace.”

Grace means “favor.” She became the object of God’s favor. She would give birth to the long expected, Jewish Messiah. Other than salvation no greater divine favor could be bestowed upon a Jewish woman.

Grace is the antidote to sin.

One full of Grace is inevitably without sin.

Grace is not the antidote to sin - shed blood is. The precious, sacrificial, shed blood of God’s unblemished Lamb. Not until the shedding of His blood could the gates of God’s infinite grace be poured out upon the sinner who turns from unbelief to belief in the Person and work of His Son.

 

[guanophore]

It’s the ONLY verse RC apologists have to try to “Biblically” prove Mary’s IC. But neither the Greek text or the context will allow it.

Not so! Catholic apologists also use Gen 3:15
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

This “enmity” is a TOTAL separation from the devil and his works. Catholics understand this to mean that she took no part in the works of darkness.

Ultimately RC apologists must make their appeal to post-Apostolic writings which obviously are neither Apostolic or theopneustos. My challenge (which so far has not been met) is for you to prove to me that the Marian assertions expressed in those writings have any kind of Apostolic connection. Unless you can they must be considered nothing more than the personal beliefs of each particular writer.

This is faulty reasoning, apophasis. The same teaching authority that brought you that bible you are using is the one that has validated the Marian doctrines, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the Sabbath as Sunday, etc, etc. If you want to reject that authority on Mary, then you have to question all the other Apostolic teachings as well! It is not someones private opinion.

God and all His creation is forever indebted to the permissive action of this one woman. No doubt the Son Himself must have stood in the wings with great anticipation, anxiously wondering if that woman would in fact give Him permission to take on humanity in order that God’s eternal plan of redemption might eventually come to pass. O my, O my, O my, let the Creator and all His creation bow low in eternal appreciation before her.

Indeed, eager longing!
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; Rom 8:19-20

This is why she is called the Mediatrix of grace. Do you think that God does not anxiously await the cooperation of humanity?

37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Matt 23:37-38

Mary would, however, and therefore, all generations call her Blessed!

But the real truth is, GF, Mary responded with"Behold the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word."But according to your Marian perspective, it is God who became the bondslave of Mary.

No, it is a cooperation with divine grace, which is expected of all of us. Is God not satisfied with cooperation?

Where there is no sin there is no need of redemption.

This is true, but we know that Mary, as a creature, did need redemption, and did recognize that she needed a Savior.

 

[Church_Militant]

It’s the ONLY verse RC apologists have to try to “Biblically” prove Mary’s IC. But neither the Greek text or the context will allow it

.That’s not true. The Greek is there regardless, and it is irrelevant how many verses of scripture are there. If even one is there, it is still there.

The appeal to historical writings of the early church serves merely to confirm that they also shared that particular belief, which is a great deal more than can be said for the fundamental errors of modern post-reformation n-C theology, namely Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, so to criticize a Catholic teaching like this while professing those teachings is ironically weird in the extreme IMO.

 

[Good_Fella]

GF, I’m not being prejudice when I ask for Apostolic proof for Rome’s assertions regarding Mary. I’m just being practical, even Biblical (Acts 17).

You haven’t been practical in the least. On the contrary, you have been intellectually dishonest with us and yourself. You have asked us to provide scriptural “proof” for Catholic Marian doctrines along the lines of your faulty criteria: ‘sola fide’ (salvation by predestination), ‘sola scriptura’ ( the authority of private, personal interpretation), and ‘sola Christo’ ( the pantheistic denial of all human mediation in God’s plan of salvation). We haven’t met your challenge because we are not arguing from the faulty premises you are. Your criteria in itself has no biblical or historical support in the true Christian faith to begin with. Further, we have failed to provide what you consider to be proof because we haven’t presented anything literal and explicit to accommodate your faulty and biased framework. Meanwhile, before even joining this thread, you had already formed a denial of the central teachings of the historic Christian faith found only in Catholicism. What our discussion actually boils down to is the question of the validity of your criteria. We are not questioning the validity of Marian doctrines at all. It’s all about whether ‘sola fide’, for instance, is a criterion the Catholic Church should follow. These Protestant concepts you hold and use as criteria are being debated on other threads, along with threads dealing with the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church. You’re constructing a self-fulfilled prophecy: Catholics will not provide any proof for their Marian doctrines. You are begging the question, for we will obviously fail to provide proof by following your criteria, although you haven’t provided any scriptural support for it. The scriptures do not tell us that the explicit teachings of the apostles are the only source for Church doctrines. Nor does Luke tell us that Mary was the “bond-slave” of the Lord. That’s something Satan would tell us. You fail to understand the true meaning of John 14 and 16 concerning the progressive development of divine revelation in the course of the historic Catholic Faith. And you ignore the Old Testament, from which we have derived our Marian doctrines. Your ‘sola Christo’ theory can be responsible for that lapse on your part. Please desist from asking for further proof, and stop wasting our time. :tiphat:

Allow me to acquaint you with a little Church history. Once the authoritative nature of the inerrant interpretation of the historic Christian faith was denied, Fundamentalists denied various teachings that were considered central to the faith even by the original reformers. These teachings that were rejected included Marian doctrines. And because Fundamentalist theology portrays man as a robot (diminishing God’s glory and stripping man of the divine image), Fundamentalists fail to see the majesty of Mary’s free acts of obedience in the divine plan of salvation; the salvation or damnation of each individual human being is foreordained by God according to Fundamentalist Calvinists. Many Fundamentalists have also denied the doctrine of the Trinity and many hold views on Christ that were condemned as heresies by the Councils of the New Testament Church. ‘Christianity Today’ reported that only 43% of Evangelicals affirm that Jesus is fully God and fully man ( 18 Apr, May 2, 1980).

Although Fundamentalists claim to go by Scripture alone, in practice their theologies are governed by various unscriptural traditions such as Dispensationalism and Calvinism which have no root in the historic Apostolic Faith. Today there are thousands of Protestant denominations and sects. This multiplication - or pyramid effect - was inevitable once the belief in private interpretation of the scriptures was embraced. Every difference in private interpretation (supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit) led to the creation of new denominations, most of which have conflicting interpretations of salvation and fundamental Christian doctrines: faith and justification, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, clergy, marriage, divorce, eschatology, original sin, heaven and hell, sanctification, sin, the relevance of the Old Testament, the gifts of the Spirit, the dispensations, miracles, the Holy Trinity, and so on. Since none of their particular interpretations are authoritative and definitive, there is no possibilty of certainty or finality about any aspect of divine revelation. :nope:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[jmcrae]

WOW!! IOW, all of divine redemption hinged on that one free will decision of one of God’s own creatures.

Absolutely.

Just as our original damnation came about by the free will choice of a sinless virgin, so also, our salvation comes about through the free will choice of a sinless virgin.

See how God’s economy balances everything perfectly? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Hence, God and all His creation is forever indebted to the permissive action of this one woman.

Yep.

No doubt the Son Himself must have stood in the wings with great anticipation, anxiously wondering if that woman would in fact give Him permission to take on humanity in order that God’s eternal plan of redemption might eventually come to pass. O my, O my, O my, let the Creator and all His creation bow low in eternal appreciation before her.

Now you’re getting it!!

 

[Ginger2]

How very sad this thread has become.

Surely Catholics don’t believe God is depends on any human for anything?

 

[Mannyfit75]

How very sad this thread has become.

Surely Catholics don’t believe God is depends on any human for anything?

Depends on the situation, which you speak of. It is common for all Christians to pray for one another to God. Unity of prayer is what we Catholics called Communion of Saints. We pray as one unit.

It is never without God. God is always in the minds of Catholic. I like to make it clear though, that no man should place his faith on a fellow human being. He should put his faith on God, just as Fr. Corapi said.

 

[jmcrae]

How very sad this thread has become.

Surely Catholics don’t believe God is depends on any human for anything?

God doesn’t “depend” on us to help Him do His work; rather, He shares his work with us. We are co-workers with God.

 

[Ginger2]

jm & manny,

I agree with both of you.

That’s kinda my point about Mary.

Whether she sinned or not, has no bearing on God’s plan for salvation. None. God does what He wants, using us despite our shortcomings.

Look at Jonah. He ran away. But in the end God’s mission was accomplished just as He planned - Jonah was the messenger.

And Zacharias doubted, but John was born, anyway.

God did not have to depend on Jonah’s willingness nor Zacharias faith to do what He asked. Nor was He dependent on Mary for either.

However, I expect God chose Mary because He knew she would be willing.

 

[Mannyfit75]

However, I expect God chose Mary because He knew she would be willing.

Jesus gave a good answer. “Blessed is she who hears the Word of God, and keep it.”

That’s his mommy, he is talking about.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Whether she sinned or not, has no bearing on God’s plan for salvation. None. God does what He wants, using us despite our shortcomings.

A recurring theme in protestant responses seems to be “What does that have to do with Salvation?”. I take issue with this. It cannot be about us as individuals. I think the single mindedness of our own Salvation rather than the total understanding and pursuit of the Truth of God’s plan and ‘Who God is’ is the problem.

We NEED to be sure we are participating in our own Salvation, of course (i.e., Baptism, Penance, etc.), but we also have a duty to make sure we understand what God wants us to know - this is a part of our Salvation, for if we don’t know Him, then we don’t know what we are supposed to do to participate in that Salvation.

The importance of accepting the truth of Mary’s role and position speaks to who Christ was. It is a part of our understanding of Him (reaching back to the OT - Christ the New Convenant, 10 Commandments the old, Mary new Ark, Old Ark is Old Ark of the Old Covenant). God chose her to have his humble servant, Mary, to bear Himself (2nd Person). This is a part of our understanding of Jesus, and who He was, since she played such an intricate role. If we disregard her, or any of the saints, we lose our understand of Him in a certain regard.

If I want to understand physics, don’t I HAVE to read the writings of Hawking, Einstein, and the rest? Can I understand physics without them?

Physics is just a material concept. God is the creator of those laws. What does it take to understand God? We must read about those who have lived the Way that Christ said to. We must also understand them and how they applied His teachings. If not, we don’t fully know Christ.

Back to my original thought … Let us not just be concerned with our own Salvation, but rather, our Salvation AND true understanding of God. Our understanding assists us on staying true to the path of our Salvation.

My rule: If you respect and honor anyone in this life, honor Christ first, then Mary, then saints, then everyone else. Who else is going to show you, by their example, the way to worship God? I’ll be keeping Mary as my spiritual mother, and the saints as my mentors. They all show me how to love Christ, because they did it more than I could ever hope to.

 

[Ginger2]

Manny,

I do believe the verse says: “Blessed are they…”

If you are referring to some other verse, please give reference.

 

[Ginger2]

jabelltulsa,

I think you should reread my post. I did not say my personal salvation, (ie "I think the single mindedness of our own Salvation ") but rather “God’s plan for our salvation” meaning the salvation of the human race - not me personally.