Theism is Rational; Christianity is Not

[roman6320]

Why must meaning in life be contingent on an afterlife?

You have to ask?!If there is no accountability why should anyone live virtuously?

Hitler was evil, he failed to attain his purpose, but rather fell into vice, the vices of power and murder.

If there is no afterlife, no eternal standard of right or wrong then Hitler was not evil and there is no vice, since the standard we measure those concepts does not exist.

Aquinas was good, he attained much of his purpose, which was to study God as best as he knew, write, and spread good moral rule.

Good moral rule has no meaning without accountability.

One can tell by the effect these people had on their own lives, how their lives ended, and how they impacted the lives of others. Also, by the nature of their friends.

Virtue, just as in many other teleological qualities, is found in moderation.

That both of them died and so now no longer exist as Aquinas and Hitler, and so aren’t in Heaven/Hell is not absurd.

Only if you accept that there is no afterlife, which begs the question. That Aquinas and Hitler now no longer exists as Aquinas and Hitler also begs the question.

What seems to me to be absurd is if Hitler were to make a sincere confession and end up in purgatory, and eventually in heaven.

True, but only because he went so far down the path of evil that he likely commited the unpardonable sin, that is being in a state that he could no longer respond to God’s. Therefore his repentance is very unlikely.

Virtue isn’t important for the sake of our happiness in the next life, but rather in this one.

It is important for both. Otherwise virtue does not exists.

Some people cannot live truly virtuous lives, because of mental problems, poverty, or sickness.

 Iv'e seen people with the above limitations live virtuous lives. It is not easy, but it can be done.  As for life not being fair, maybe not, but the fact that we even reference the concept of fair indicates that it exists and that humanity knows that if life isn't fair, it should be.

This may not seem fair, but to say that suggests any flaw in nature is anthropomorphizing nature.

If I say my car isn’t running right am I anthrpormophizing my car?

 

[aristotle]

A limitation on God is such that God, if It violated this limitation, would not be God.

Since God is eternal and there cannot be both God and not-God, the conclusion must be that anything God should not do God cannot do.

 

[aristotle]

When a person becomes more perfect in virtue and morality,he becomes more free and brave in certain actions than he could ever be if he had not become more perfect.

Limitations free. A paradox, but nontheless true.

An example from Lewis, when Caspian asks if it is alright to join Eustace and Jill in facing of bullies, Aslan says “You cannot want wrong things any more, now that you have died, my son.”

That is the essence of a limit. It is also the essence of freedom.

 

[aristotle]

…

You make me look schitzophrenic.

If you would parse your statement, so I can easily tell what is yours and what is mine, I will be happy to respond to it.

Thank you.

 

[anthony022071]

A limitation on God is such that God, if It violated this limitation, would not be God.

But how can anyone put a limitation on the thought and potency of God? Limitations may be put on Platonic Ideas and Forms,because they are just abstractions with defined outlines. But to put limitations on the thought and potency of God is to treat God,a living and thinking entity,as just another abstraction.

Since God is eternal and there cannot be both God and not-God, the conclusion must be that anything God should not do God cannot do.

What do you mean by not-God? Are you conflating God with the cosmos? And who is to say that what God should not do God cannot do? Who can even be sure of what God should not do? God must have the greater wisdom,understanding and justice
for what he should and should not do,and would be able to do things that men would think he should not do.

 

[Keikiolu]

Keikiolu,

Thank you for your post. And thank you all; I was off on vacation, so I have been for a time unable to respond properly. I am getting back to you now, and I apologize for the confusion delay causes in such things as forums.

I must admit, I did not understand what you meant by “intellectual masturbation”, and with philosophy not being able to provide life answers. My philosophy (though it is not truly mine) helps me live life far better. Maybe religion would improve my life even further (maybe even from happiness to blessedness, I don’t know). This is, in part, what I intend to explore on these forums.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *There is no “linkage” between what you describe as “god” and why you would say it (or rather why Aristotle would say it).*Why Aristotle would say what?

The “setup”:

Me:

You:

“God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.” (Aristotle, Metaphysics Lambda, Trans. Ross)

God, defined in this manner, can be defended, and this God I accept.

There is no “linkage” between what you describe as “god” and why you would say it (or rather why Aristotle would say it).

WHY would you (or Aristotle) accept that this definition is “satisfactory”? What is the REASON that this definition of God was come to, and how is it satisfying (“defensible” in your terms)…?

Quote:Since you say, explicitly, that “god cannot be percieved”, you MUST be describing something you CAN’T percieve, which I dare say would be not description of “reality” but wholesale hallucination. Is reality defined by our perceptions? Or even by what can and cannot be perceived? God cannot even be an hallucination, for that is perception without substance, the true absence of being. Rather, God is substence without our perceiving it, the direct opposite of an hallucination.

I realize I’m not going to change your mind. So this will simply be a “telling of beliefs”, one to the other, between us.

God is not imperceivable. Reality IS defined by our perceptions, even if our perceptions are not “sense organ” based, but rather “intellection organ” based.

Reality is not “made up” by each being. Reality is a real thing, a REALITY. There is only one reality, and we all share our one reality.

The fact the you can posit that God is “imperceptable”, and yet has the “qualities” that you “give Him”, is simple contradiction in terms.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

You shouldn’t…!

My God is believable to me because He has revealed Himself to me, as I said above. This is NOT a good reason that you should believe in my God.

The fact that God hasn’t revealed Himself to you, for whatever reason, coming from either one “side” or the other (yours or His), tells me that you specifically shouldn’t believe in Him, as the only way to “know God” is for HIm to reveal Himself to you.

Quote:As long as we can agree that we are each these things to each other, and still be friends, or at least friendly toward each other, then I have no problem with having an interesting conversation with you.

Except for the “nutburger” line. I think you (likely) a sane person, though lost in impossible (or unlikely) dreams. These dreams are desirable, and as far as I know, do not make it so that you cannot operate usefully in the world.

The funny thing about this is that I held nearly precisely the same thinking as you do now about 1.2 years ago.

Old-I would have argued with new-me that old-I believes in God as the singular absolute omnipotent “thing” there could possibly be, and that such a thing is “impossible”, but it exists because as the only thing that IS completely impossible, due to it’s singularity, it is the only thing that COULD be as it is described.

In other words, that it is God, singular, but it is utterly unknowable except in it’s it’s ONE SINGULAR characteristic of “necessary impossibility”.

I definitely hope we can get along.

I’m very eacy to get along with, if you can’t be insulted by some ninnie (myself) spouting off about his opinions.

Even if I call you a crack-addled Stalin-worshipper, it’s really not personal. It would merely be a reaction to your words as comprehended by me. In fact, my “insults” are always “prods” to get my partner to “have your little over-reaction now as opposed to later”, so that I know whether I’m dealing with a adult, or a little whiny juvenile fluffball.

You don’t SEEM the fluffball type,… but I don’t know you too terribly well yet.

Quote:Since you define “god” such as to not be perceptible, and apparently to not be “perceptable” by his “works”, as he doesn’t “work”…

God, eternally, does a lot of work. Its work is thinking about God. God does not work on us, except to attract us to It, by Its mere existence.

I have a good book for you: “Introdution to Christianity”, by the now Pope.

Unless you are “called” by God to see that He is personal, in fact in three persons, it is impossible to accept that He “interferes” with mankind, or with the world in general, at all.

Thus, your belief that He merely “attracts”, whatever that means, is perfectly sensible, and MUCH closer to the truth than the atheist would have it.

Quote:even your statement that “god moves all things only by attraction” is ALSO a hallucination on your part, thus informing me further that you are (at least) “conflicted” in your definitions of “god” and his “ways”, or are outright “psycho”.

This I do not understand. Where is the conflict? Why “psycho”? I’m lost.

You posit a God that is imperceptable, as a being, and His “works/ways” are imperceptable, except in some way that can’t point back to Him because then He’d be “perceptable in His works”, which negates His imperceptability.

Thus, You say He is simultaneously perceptable and imperceptable, which I take to be “a bit goofy”.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

Hmmm,… I’ll give you this one…!

The fact that your “rationalism” is “perverse”, due to what I know to be the truth, which to YOU is exceedingly “perverse rationalism” on my part, no doubt, doesn’t “eliminate” your particular brand of “rationalism”.

The support is this: Nothing can become anything if attracted to, so if nothing can become anything, it is potentially anything. That means that nothing, with the right motivation, has the power to be anything, so nothing is all powerful, so nothing is omnipotent.

I agree with your logic. I just disagree that “nothing” can be other than “nothing” without losing it’s “nothingness”.

Once “nothing” becomes “non-nothing”, either another “nothing” takes over where it left off, or there is no longer a “nothing” to “be” omnipotent.

You would (possibly) argue the first case, the “created nothing” that takes over the “omnipotence” characteristic, but this “new” nothing now possesses two characteristics, being omnipotence and “newness”.

Every “time” this happens, a new “nothing”, God, is created. That’s an interesting consequence,… but not a real one,… so you’re left believing in “fantasies” again,… with brings us back around to the “cuckoo” factor of your proposition.

Quote: You actually MEAN that omnipotence doesn’t exist…

I am rather applying attributes to “nothingness”. But, if someone would cry fowl at doing so, I can simply agree that omnipotence does not exist.

Do you know how HARD it is to get someone to admit to what you’ve courageously admitted to…!!?

My hat’s off to you. Well played…!

Quote: Now, if only “god” is “the best thing”, which is a round-about way of saying “omnipotent”…

Only if you define “omnipotent” in a different way than I do. I define “omnipotent” as “having the potential to do/be anything (poss. within one’s nature).” The best thing, God, has no potential, and so cannot be omnipotent.

Perfectly sensible conclusion,… but utterly lacking in reality. Our definitions of “omnipotent” are different. Omnipotence is the ability to do that which is most wise, not merely to do “whatever” is possible to do, because to do other than what is most wise is to work at cross purposes with oneself. This assumes a “doer” who is a PERSON.

“The best thing” would necessarily be most wise, and therefore the only being (in three persons) capable of being onmipotent.

And there it ends.

A very interesting set of points.

Indeed…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[aristotle]

WHY would you (or Aristotle) accept that this definition is “satisfactory”? What is the REASON that this definition of God was come to, and how is it satisfying (“defensible” in your terms)…?

God, as defined this way, is defensible because argument can establish that God likely exists.

The definition itself is seen as satisfying and useful mostly because it describes an ultimate intellect. This, at least, seems to be Aristotle’s defense for using the term. My defense is simpler: Aristotle used it, so out of respect for tradition and history, I will also.

I realize I’m not going to change your mind. So this will simply be a “telling of beliefs”, one to the other, between us.

Excellent. And you are quite right. As far as I know, only I can change my mind.

Your view may also be defensible, but I am quite unsure as to how, save for a few points.

Reality is not “made up” by each being. Reality is a real thing, a REALITY. There is only one reality, and we all share our one reality.

I completely agree. And I find this a necessary thing to assume before even beginning on any proof or argument, whether philosophical, scientific, political, or mathematical.

The fact the you can posit that God is “imperceptable”, and yet has the “qualities” that you “give Him”, is simple contradiction in terms.

By “perception” I mean observed or inferred from observation from a finite number of interactions. I directly observe light. I indirectly observe my table, because it reflects certain light. So I perceive both. By saying that “God is imperceptible” I mean that one cannot scatter particles off of God, in order to get a reading as to Its size, etc.

That we can know about God simply means that there are ways to derive existing things that one cannot scatter particles off of.

There is no contradiction in the end.

 

[aristotle]

First, thank you for the kind words, and interesting arguments.

I will take one example of what I think exemplifies what you are saying.

Unless you are “called” by God to see that He is personal, in fact in three persons, it is impossible to accept that He “interferes” with mankind, or with the world in general, at all.

I hope God doesn’t hold me responsible for what He hasn’t given me chance to believe.

Thus, your belief that He merely “attracts”, whatever that means, is perfectly sensible, and MUCH closer to the truth than the atheist would have it.

Very encouraging.

You don’t SEEM the fluffball type,… but I don’t know you too terribly well yet.

I am of the age that I shouldn’t be. At least, the physical age.

Hopefully we can both learn more about each other.

 

[JFonseka]

It is very likely that God, a single being, exists, where God is defined as that which cannot be perceived, and from this definition and certain assumptions has the characteristics of being the best thing, thought thinking itself. “God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.” (Aristotle, Metaphysics Lambda, Trans. Ross)

God, defined in this manner, can be defended, and this God I accept. But the Christian God I cannot. God had no son, no mother, does not write books, and indeed has no power to move things, but moves all things only by attraction.

Omnipotence is all-power, infinite potential, the ability to do and be anything. Only nothing is omnipotent. God has no potential, for anything that God could do God does.

Perhaps Aristotle didn’t realize the difficult in trying to express infinite parameters (God) in finite expressions (Languages[Maths, lingustics,etc])

Hence his whole rant is just void.

 

[aristotle]

Every “time” this happens, a new “nothing”, God, is created. That’s an interesting consequence,… but not a real one,… so you’re left believing in “fantasies” again,… with brings us back around to the “cuckoo” factor of your proposition.

Between the two options, I choose neither.

“Nothingness” is a potential quality. It doesn’t actually exist, so it cannot change (nothing cannot become not-nothing except potentially).

Do you know how HARD it is to get someone to admit to what you’ve courageously admitted to…!!?

My hat’s off to you. Well played…!

Perfectly sensible conclusion,… but utterly lacking in reality. Our definitions of “omnipotent” are different. Omnipotence is the ability to do that which is most wise, not merely to do “whatever” is possible to do, because to do other than what is most wise is to work at cross purposes with oneself. This assumes a “doer” who is a PERSON.

“The best thing” would necessarily be most wise, and therefore the only being (in three persons) capable of being onmipotent.

Both definitions are fair. But I don’t know how to defend an omnipotent God in argument.

Thank you again for a truly enjoyable interaction, critique, and sharing.

 

[aristotle]

Perhaps Aristotle didn’t realize the difficult in trying to express infinite parameters (God) in finite expressions (Languages[Maths, lingustics,etc])

Hence his whole rant is just void.

If his “rant” is just void, then all “rants” are, and one cannot communicate about God, because no one can apply language to God. I would rather be an atheist, if this is the case.

Furthermore, neither he nor I would accept that God is actually infinite.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
WHY would you (or Aristotle) accept that this definition is “satisfactory”? What is the REASON that this definition of God was come to, and how is it satisfying (“defensible” in your terms)…?

God, as defined this way, is defensible because argument can establish that God likely exists.

So,… it’s a good definition of God because you can positively argue that God exists…?

Why would you want to argue that God exists? You seem to first NEED for God to exist, and then later WANT to find a way to make a case that God rationally can exist.

What is the primary reason for your initial NEED to have God exist?

(( My guess is it’s simply an intellectual exercise. That you think you have no REAL need for God, just that it is a fun thing to argue about. ))

The definition itself is seen as satisfying and useful mostly because it describes an ultimate intellect. This, at least, seems to be Aristotle’s defense for using the term. My defense is simpler: Aristotle used it, so out of respect for tradition and history, I will also.

Re: the bolded part:

So, the “justification of an ultimate intellect” is the “need for God to exist”…?

Hmmm,… So you’re literally DEIFYING INTELLECT? That would account for the “uselessness of God” (non-“interference”) that I see in your attitude toward God.

But,… without revelation from God, you, like Aristotle, have only what yu have to work with,… and it (utterly lamely) approximates a belief in God.

Quote:
I realize I’m not going to change your mind. So this will simply be a “telling of beliefs”, one to the other, between us.

Excellent. And you are quite right. As far as I know, only I can change my mind.

Only YOU can prevent forest fires…!!

Your view may also be defensible, but I am quite unsure as to how, save for a few points.

Quote:
Reality is not “made up” by each being. Reality is a real thing, a REALITY. There is only one reality, and we all share our one reality.

I completely agree. And I find this a necessary thing to assume before even beginning on any proof or argument, whether philosophical, scientific, political, or mathematical.

There’s hope for you yet…!! So many “hyper-rationalists” take the position that the “big universe” is some version of a “multiverse” of infinite possibilities, where to change one’s mind is to change one’s universe.

I quite happy that you haven’t fallen into that goofy trap.

Quote:
The fact the you can posit that God is “imperceptable”, and yet has the “qualities” that you “give Him”, is simple contradiction in terms.

By “perception” I mean observed or inferred from observation from a finite number of interactions. I directly observe light. I indirectly observe my table, because it reflects certain light. So I perceive both. By saying that “God is imperceptible” I mean that one cannot scatter particles off of God, in order to get a reading as to Its size, etc.

This assumes that God, to be God, would “scatter particles” to be perceptible by the “particle scattering method” of observation. Since we don’t know what God would “look like” using this method, even if that method “worked” we couldn’t make sense of our results,… so wether that method works or not, it neither proves or disproves anything at all.

As a logical statement, does it make sense to say that, “I percieve something that is imperceptible”…?

No. If a thing (even God) is imperceptible, then there can be no perception of it, either direct or indirect, because if a perception received by a perceiver in any way points back toward it (the “imperceptible thing”), it is no longer imperceptible, but now perceptible,…

…which, if God is defined as “imperceptible”, is a proof for the non-existence of God.

That we can know about God simply means that there are ways to derive existing things that one cannot scatter particles off of.

There is no contradiction in the end.

That we can know about God simply means that God can be percieved, otherwise there is no “knowing” God.

I have no idea what you mean by “there are ways to derive existing things”…!

Please clarify. Thanks…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

First, thank you for the kind words, and interesting arguments.

I will take one example of what I think exemplifies what you are saying.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Unless you are “called” by Goevery pre
d to see that He is personal, in fact in three persons, it is impossible to accept that He “interferes” with mankind, or with the world in general, at all.

I hope God doesn’t hold me responsible for what He hasn’t given me chance to believe.

Well, we are ALL “called by God” at every moment, so that was perhaps not the “most clear” use of the term.

What I meant was that we can accept the “call by God”, which is “hearing His ever present call”, or not, as suits our person at the time. We have free will to make that choice.

Now,… God DOESN’T hold you responsible for something you aren’t responsible for (by definition), but He does hold you utterly responsible for something you are responsible for.

The question then becomes, “Are you responsible for not accepting God’s call when He gives it and your person is in the position to understand it?”

Your very presence here in these fori now demand that the answer to the above question is “Yes”. Actually it’s “Yes” in any case, but you are now in a position to understand God’s call, and to either accept it or not.

“But how do I KNOW that that’s God’s call!!?”, I hear you say.

You DON’T KNOW,… that’s why they call it “faith”. In matters concerning God, faith PROceeds reason. You must believe BEFORE you find a rationale to believe.

…plus,… you can always change your mind later. No fatwa of death against apostates here…!

Quote:Thus, your belief that He merely “attracts”, whatever that means, is perfectly sensible, and MUCH closer to the truth than the atheist would have it.
Very encouraging.

So, what DOES “attracts” mean?

Quote:You don’t SEEM the fluffball type,… but I don’t know you too terribly well yet.
I am of the age that I shouldn’t be. At least, the physical age.

Hopefully we can both learn more about each other.

Nyeah,… I got nothin’ to learn from you… This is gonna be a one way lesson my ignorant deluded friend.

Oh,… did I say that out loud…!? Damnation,… Gotta get some more of that thorazine stuff from the Doc. Them’s tastey little pills with a good strong cup’pa coffee, and a nice potion 'a CHERRY PIE…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mschrank]

I’m the other way around, I’m a natural Agnostic, faith-ful Catholic Christian.

In other words, I believe that it is more plausible than not that Jesus Christ said and did the things they say he did. However, if not for that, I would not believe in God.

I don’t see how one deduces God from philosophy alone because there is more to the world than philosophy.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Every “time” this happens, a new “nothing”, God, is created. That’s an interesting consequence,… but not a real one,… so you’re left believing in “fantasies” again,… with brings us back around to the “cuckoo” factor of your proposition.

Between the two options, I choose neither.

I would too, if I were you…!

“Nothingness” is a potential quality. It doesn’t actually exist, so it cannot change (nothing cannot become not-nothing except potentially).

Nothing can become non-nothing by the work of God. That is the ONLY way that nothing can become non-nothing, in fact.

The “leap” from nothing to non-nothing requires “omnipotence”, as the “gap” between the two is infinite (or “infinite potential” in your terms).

Since you believe there is no such thing as omnipotence, this act of creation by God can not happen.

Since God couldn’t create non-nothing,… nothing alone exists, in it’s nonexistence.

Bummer…!

Quote:
Do you know how HARD it is to get someone to admit to what you’ve courageously admitted to…!!?

My hat’s off to you. Well played…!

Quote:
Perfectly sensible conclusion,… but utterly lacking in reality. Our definitions of “omnipotent” are different. Omnipotence is the ability to do that which is most wise, not merely to do “whatever” is possible to do, because to do other than what is most wise is to work at cross purposes with oneself. This assumes a “doer” who is a PERSON.

“The best thing” would necessarily be most wise, and therefore the only being (in three persons) capable of being onmipotent.

Both definitions are fair. But I don’t know how to defend an omnipotent God in argument.

Pretty much the way He did…

“I AM WHO AM.”

…that’s why He’s called that.

Thank you again for a truly enjoyable interaction, critique, and sharing.

Keep 'em coming…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

I’m the other way around, I’m a natural Agnostic, faith-ful Catholic Christian.

D’uhhhhhhhhhh,… What…!?

In other words, I believe that it is more plausible than not that Jesus Christ said and did the things they say he did. However, if not for that, I would not believe in God.

Oh…! Good thing you’re not a pre-Christian, then. Back in the day you’d be a… hmmmm… basic “pagan” or whatever the local version of “leave me alone God is for the pointy headed guys around the block” type was…?

I don’t see how one deduces God from philosophy alone because there is more to the world than philosophy.

Philosophy gets you to “Oooo big shiney!”, but doesn’t get you to the “Splattttt…!”

(( That was a “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” reference, than you very much… ))

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[aristotle]

After having talked with a Monsignor for about a month, after having debated some things here, and on other forums, and after the wise and kind council from some of the members here, I have decided to go through RCIA with the intent to become Catholic.

As I believe in God as more than Aristotle’s concept (though Aristotle’s god is still useful, I think, as a starting point), the argument here is forfeit.

As I also am gay, my main concern will be to reconsile my lifestyle with what God wants from me.

Thank you all again for your time and support. I had to make one last-ditch effort for Aristotle’s god before moving on. I feel sad about it, and happy too.

So God bless (sounds strange to say that, what else would He do?)

 

[SeekerJen]

After having talked with a Monsignor for about a month, after having debated some things here, and on other forums, and after the wise and kind council from some of the members here, I have decided to go through RCIA with the intent to become Catholic.

As I believe in God as more than Aristotle’s concept (though Aristotle’s god is still useful, I think, as a starting point), the argument here is forfeit.

As I also am gay, my main concern will be to reconsile my lifestyle with what God wants from me.

Thank you all again for your time and support. I had to make one last-ditch effort for Aristotle’s god before moving on. I feel sad about it, and happy too.

So God bless (sounds strange to say that, what else would He do?)

I’m coming late to this thread, but welcome home! This is very good news.

Remember that faith is outside the realm of rationality; it, as well as God, cannot be proven or measured scientifically (and I say this as a research scientist). Faith and science IMO should never be at odds with one another, and to that end they should not be evaluated against the same criteria. To quote our Lord Jesus Christ, “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” (John 20:29) So God bless you, too.