Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?

[ManOnFire]

We are connected to the ocean. We eat the fish and we play on the beaches. Throw a plastic bottle in the ocean, you harm the fish, you litter the beach. You harm the environment enough and you don’t have fish to eat anymore. The harm you do comes back to you.

The fashion and entertainment industries are elective wastes of carbon. How do you feel every time you buy unnecessary clothes that are not worn out or watch a movie? The point is that when it comes to environmental worship, someone else can always make a stronger argument than your bottle in the ocean. Either thousands of people will die and millions will be displaced when the oceans rise, or they won’t. It seems hypocritical to selectively conserve based on one’s individual level of convenience.

 

[ManOnFire]

I have a very good friend who is into all things New Age. She tries crystals, aromatherapy, Jungian pyschology, channelling etc, to no avail. She still feels anxious and depressed.

I gently try to tell her that God is the source of all peace, and keeps us free from anxiety, but so far she is not ready to turn to Christianity. One day, I am hoping she will, and quit this endless search for happiness and self-knowledge through all these unfruitful New Age teachings and methodologies.

Modern pop culture media has a way of reducing humanity into the desire for constant stimulation and entertainment of the Self. Progressives in the media have removed the messages of romantic love in the 70s and 80s and replaced it with messages of edgy lust and hype that fails to satisfy the soul’s desire for romantic love that lasts. The temporary nature of the edgy lust and hype that fails to last creates the perpetual desire to place stimulation of Self above Others. Stimulation of Self is easy and fast with their messages to use physical and chemical means, but they fail to provide lasting satisfaction. This is the opposite message of Christ who says the deepest love is found when we lay down our lives for our friends. Many of those who have become enslaved by the desire for stimulation of the Self are too fearful and weak to believe they should want to sacrifice for Others or risk getting their feelings hurt because one cannot control the actions of our loved ones, but in the process of of being afraid, they miss out on the opportunity to find True Love. Many Christians are functioning more like atheists because of the desire to entertain the Self. Catholicism would be much easier to practice and witness if we turn off the temptations in the media which are reducing us in a direction away from the romantic, agape love.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sufjon,

I am not sure what the basis is for introducing austerities into a genuine moral life - and how any of that actually provides for a religious experience. But, just to make sure we are all on the same page with the definition, I copied the following from Wiki - if you have a better definition, please share it.

“The New Age movement is a Western spiritual movement that developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Its central precepts have been described as “drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and then infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics”.[2] It aims to create “a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas” that is inclusive and pluralistic.[3] Another of its primary traits is holding to “a holistic worldview,”[4] thereby emphasising that the Mind, Body and Spirit are interrelated[1] and that there is a form of Monism and unity throughout the universe.[5] It further attempts to create “a worldview that includes both science and spirituality”[6] and thereby embraces a number of forms of science and pseudoscience.”

Notice how God (the Creator of All) is avoided… but gods abound.

Self-flogging and wearing uncomfortable items so as to produce pain are not virtuous acts - virtue comes from our intention. St. Paul (1Cor 9:27) tells us that he was actively engaged in bringing his body under control - but he did this for closer union with Christ - not just to infict pain on himself.

Actually, I think that the characterization of New Age as, “…offer(ing) slack values and a free booting lifestyle…” is right on target - and I certainly would not disagree with that. Ultimately, Christ hit the nail squarely on the head (Matt 7:16) when He said, “By their fruits, you will know them…”. Just what has been the outcome of New Age if not as described above? Now, there have been some naturally good outcomes - but, be advised that total evil and depravity with no redeeming features is reserved for Hell alone…

Being a good steward is not an option (1Pet 4:10) but a genuine requirement. Making a god of nature, however, is just another wrapping for paganism to disguise itself in. Honest.

And, really leading a naturally moral life (not stealing or killing your neighbor, correcting evils, pointing out political corruption and attempting to have all men do good for one another. I think this would characterize the lifes of many of the Ancient Greeks (and just a few of he Ancient Romans). But, these (even as refreshing as they would be today) are just natural virtues with no view of God in their act.

Looking for the ‘genuineness’ in others is tricky at best… especially in individuals joining a religioous group or cult whose existence is measured in hours. Besides, no matter how strongly and sincerely we believe 2 + 2 = 5 … we are still objectively wrong. I realize that God judges the heart (1Sam 16:7) but we are not allowed to willfully engage in self-deception (“I don’t want to believe that because it conflicts with what I want to do to myself and others.” may be a fair characterization)

I think PRmerger hit the nail on the head.

God bless

I am writing this in the hopes that it’s considered on topic, in that I’m trying to respond to someone who has postulated as to why New Age beliefs are attractive, which is the title of the thread. The point in particular is that New Age beliefs are attractive because they offer slack values and a free booting lifestyle. If I have misunderstood, then I apologize…

Now PR Merger, PJM et al, are you sure you guys want to suggest that others don’t have moral values because they don’t fall into the confines of what you’ve been told or chosen to believe? PRMerger, having been familiarized with the austerities of my faith, would you say that they are in some way more slack than yours? I say this because I think you have somehow equated New Age beliefs with anything non-christian. Either way, in your estimation, would God be more pleased if I were to love others and show kindness, or is it your view that would He prefer that I flog myself or wear a metal belt under my clothes? I am not sure I follow the line of thought, and indeed I am not entirely certain that some people don’t acquire a taste for such things, in which case self mortification and the like would then be abominations. Is that not right?

Are we afraid that others are escaping their due level of self-sacrifice or something? Is someone escaping the pangs of life that you suffer, or are we all doing our best to find God in whichever way we have reasoned to be most fit? You have reasoned that to be a 2,000 year old faith. I have reasoned it to be a 6 thousand year old faith. Someone else sees God in a faith that started a week ago. Is one less genuine in it’s longing for God? Or does God reserve His grace only for those whose brains happen to be wired in such a way as to see things this way or that? Did He give me the ability to reason not knowing what I might see?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ManOnFire,



God bless

The fashion and entertainment industries are elective wastes of carbon. How do you feel every time you buy unnecessary clothes that are not worn out or watch a movie? The point is that when it comes to environmental worship, someone else can always make a stronger argument than your bottle in the ocean. Either thousands of people will die and millions will be displaced when the oceans rise, or they won’t. It seems hypocritical to selectively conserve based on one’s individual level of convenience.

 

[seeker57]

Sufjon, have you ever thought about how it is you know what Jesus’ words were?

I will tell you how you know: it is through these :“people who interpreted these things” (i.e the apostles and their successors).

IOW: you would not know that Jesus spoke these words: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

except for some men who interpreted them to be theopneustos.

Did you know that there are over 400 ancient Christian texts, most of which were rejected by these “men who interpreted them” and discerned them to not be the words of Jesus.

There’s even a story about Jesus, as a little boy, making animals out of mud, and at his word these animals sprung to life.

It was the CC–men who interpreted–who discerned that this was not inspired words, but that the words, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” were.

So, you see, that each and every time you talk about what Jesus said you are giving tacit authority to these men.

Actually, we have no idea what Jesus actually said, because he, like Mohammed, never wrote anything down.

Everything some accept as verbatim dialogue was actually not written down for two to three centuries after the fact.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, we have no idea what Jesus actually said, because he, like Mohammed, never wrote anything down.

‘Tis true, this. Parapharasing St. Augustine: you would not know what Jesus said were it not for the Catholic Church…which is why it’s quite peculiar that non-Catholics often quote the Bible and Jesus’ sayings yet hold to the belief that the Church is not infallible.

Everything some accept as verbatim dialogue was actually not written down for** two to three centuries after the fact.
**
Peace,

Seeker

Do you have a source for this, Seeker? My understanding is that the Gospels and NT narratives were written within a generation of Jesus’ words.

 

[CMatt25]

‘Tis true, this. Parapharasing St. Augustine: you would not know what Jesus said were it not for the Catholic Church…which is why it’s quite peculiar that non-Catholics often quote the Bible and Jesus’ sayings yet hold to the belief that the Church is not infallible.

Do you have a source for this, Seeker? My understanding is that the Gospels and NT narratives were written within a generation of Jesus’ words.

While this theme is purported frequently. it’s not the least bit peculiar if one has the understanding God can use His Church Body for whatever purpose He chooses at any given the time, ie, compilation of Biblical canon in the 4th century. But that such a compilation means not a thing in regard to the infallibilty of what is known as the Catholic Church, ie, the need many of His Body of Believers later saw for a Reformation and finally were led to act upon it in the 15th century. And so on. God works and speaks within His timeframe. Not ours. It was many, many yrs from the time of Creation to 33 AD for instance. And then more time before it was the 4th century, the 15th, the 21st.

 

[PRmerger]

While this theme is purported frequently. it’s not the least bit peculiar if one has the understanding God can use His Church Body for whatever purpose He chooses at any given the time, ie, compilation of Biblical canon in the 4th century. But that such a compilation means not a thing in regard to the infallibilty of what is known as the Catholic Church, ie, the need many of His Body of Believers later saw for a Reformation and finally were led to act upon it in the 15th century. And so on. God works and speaks within His timeframe. Not ours. It was many, many yrs from the time of Creation to 33 AD for instance. And then more time before it was the 4th century, the 15th, the 21st.

Yet, Matt, it seems that you believe the Church got it right in discerning that the Gospel of Thomas is not theopneustos?

How do you know that the Church got it right on that, but wrong on saying other things?

What is the canon you use to discern when she is wrong and when she is right?

My guess: when it conforms to your own ideas, she is right, and when she proposes things that are in disagreement, then it is the Church that got it wrong.

 

[CMatt25]

Yet, Matt, it seems that you believe the Church got it right in discerning that the Gospel of Thomas is not theopneustos?

How do you know that the Church got it right on that, but wrong on saying other things?

What is the canon you use to discern when she is wrong and when she is right?

My guess: when it conforms to your own ideas, she is right, and when she proposes things that are in disagreement, then it is the Church that got it wrong.

Actually Merger, I’m not all that familiar with what the Apostle Thomas said in his Gospel. Did he say some good things?

As Christians we’re all merely trying to follow Him to the best of our discernment and understanding. I, with faith, in the end, that the gates shall not prevail. Peace.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seeker57,

Well, I think you are partially correct if a very limited view of ‘actually said’ is used. There was no stenographer that constantly followed Christ so that a verbatim transcript was available for the Four Evangelists to refer to while they wrote their gospels.

By this logic, however, we do not have the actual words of the various kings of the ancient world becaue most of them did not write down what they said themselves - they were written by others. So, we may need to move to a more expanded view of what was said and by whom…

Actually, we have an excellent idea of what Jesus actually said - and that He was the Savior of the World. All of His various discourses as recorded by the Four Evangelists were written between 60-100AD (Mark late 60’s early 70sAD, Matthew about 80AD, Luke 90’sAD and John late 90’s wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_the_gospels_written ) and not the, “…two to three centuries after the fact” as you claim.

Truthfully, while there is a lot of historical data surrounding the First Century - and not all of it was accurate! There were the precursors to today’s computer hackers - the Gnostics who wrote fabricated works with the idea of passing them off as the authentic writings of the other apostles and saints who interacted with Jesus. There were also holy men who wrote inspirational literature during this time. But none of this was inspired. It took the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to develop the Canon of Sacred Scripture - identifying only the inspired Word of God from the works of men. This took place in about 400AD.

God bless

Actually, we have no idea what Jesus actually said, because he, like Mohammed, never wrote anything down.

Everything some accept as verbatim dialogue was actually not written down for two to three centuries after the fact.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[PRmerger]

Actually Merger, I’m not all that familiar with what the Apostle Thomas said in his Gospel. Did he say some good things?

Indeed, he did. Good, yes. Inspired? No.

So I wouldn’t use my determination as to whether what he said was inspired or not.
The only way we could discern it was NOT, is because Holy Mother Church, in her infallible wisdom, made a decision about this. Which, I presume, you agree with?

And I’m not sure it was actually the Apostle Thomas that wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

As Christians we’re all merely trying to follow Him to the best of our discernment and understanding. I, with faith, in the end, that the gates shall not prevail. Peace.

So, I’m guessing you think the Church got it right when she included the passage that the
“gates shall not prevail”? There’s nothing unpalatable in that is there?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

Maybe this will help. It is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

**"Gospel of St. Thomas

There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution."**
There is more on this general topic and here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

Ultimately, the Bible most of us work with can be traced back to the Catholic Church that gave us the Canon of Sacred Scripture about 400AD. The Protestant version today has seven books removed - so it is shorter than the Catholic version.

Hope this helps.

God bless

Actually Merger, I’m not all that familiar with what the Apostle Thomas said in his Gospel. Did he say some good things?

As Christians we’re all merely trying to follow Him to the best of our discernment and understanding. I, with faith, in the end, that the gates shall not prevail. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Indeed, he did. Good, yes. Inspired? No.

So I wouldn’t use my determination as to whether what he said was inspired or not.
The only way we could discern it was NOT, is because Holy Mother Church, in her infallible wisdom, made a decision about this. Which, I presume, you agree with?

And I’m not sure it was actually the Apostle Thomas that wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

So, I’m guessing you think the Church got it right when she included the passage that the
“gates shall not prevail”? There’s nothing unpalatable in that is there?

Agree Thomas or whoever wrote the Gospel attributed to him was correctly left out of the NT? Well like I said I know little about the Gospel of Thomas. I do good to dicern Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And if we can’t be certain he even wrote it, then I guess it was best the Gospel of Thomas wasn’t included. But I still like he was human enough to have doubt.

PR, of course there’s nothing unpalatable in that. For Christians it’s a given the gates will not prevail. If the gates are going to prevail, what’s the point?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

You know … come to think of it … I do think the Catholic Church, “… got it right…” and there is further evidence that the Gates of Hell will not prevail!

Sounds like our God is truly an awesome God!

God bless

Indeed, he did. Good, yes. Inspired? No.

So I wouldn’t use my determination as to whether what he said was inspired or not.
The only way we could discern it was NOT, is because Holy Mother Church, in her infallible wisdom, made a decision about this. Which, I presume, you agree with?

And I’m not sure it was actually the Apostle Thomas that wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

So, I’m guessing you think the Church got it right when she included the passage that the
“gates shall not prevail”? There’s nothing unpalatable in that is there?

 

[CMatt25]

Hi, CMatt25,

Maybe this will help. It is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

**"Gospel of St. Thomas

There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution."**
There is more on this general topic and here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

Ultimately, the Bible most of us work with can be traced back to the Catholic Church that gave us the Canon of Sacred Scripture about 400AD. The Protestant version today has seven books removed - so it is shorter than the Catholic version.

Hope this helps.

God bless

Thanks tqualey for the info about the Thomas Gospel. You are always of some help. And right. So non Catholics don’t accept exactly the version compiled in about 400AD as advocated by my friend PRMerger. God bless you too and PRMerger and all of us seeking Him. Let us offer each other the sign of peace.

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t want to distract or move away from the debates or other conversations already going here, but would like to mention that one of the reasons that the New Age movement is so attractive, from my experience and observations, is that it offers an alternative explanation for Christianity. Maybe this has already been discussed, and I missed it.

When I was a New-Ager, many years ago, I was given an alternative version to Christianity, a New-Age version…and there are many different New-Age versions. Basically, New-Age groups will redefine Christianity in order to make it conform more to New-Age beliefs. Even groups that do not consider themselves Christian will tell Christians (as they do on this thread) that the traditional definition of Christianity is wrong. Here’s an example. The New-Age yoga meditation group that I belonged to for nine years, based in India, complete with a guru of course, would ‘reinterpret’ the gospels to make it seem that Jesus was just another guru. They would say that the part of Scripture where it says…“if thy eye be single, then thy whole body shall be filled with light,” really meant that that the ‘single eye’ in Scripture really refers to the “third eye” on our forehead, and that our whole body becomes filled with light when we meditate with our third eye. Which is nonsense of course. And there are many other examples.

When Jesus Himself and the Gospels are ‘reinterpreted’ thus, the idea of sin and redemption is pretty much always downplayed. Rather than being the Redeemer of the world, Jesus just becomes another wise and beloved guru.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

You know … come to think of it … I do think the Catholic Church, “… got it right…” and there is further evidence that the Gates of Hell will not prevail!

Sounds like our God is truly an awesome God!

God bless

Indeed!

 

[PRmerger]

Agree Thomas or whoever wrote the Gospel attributed to him was correctly left out of the NT? Well like I said I know little about the Gospel of Thomas.

So, Matt are you saying that if you read it, studied it, you could discern if it was inspired or not?

Yes, or no?

 

[PRmerger]

So non Catholics don’t accept exactly the version compiled in about 400AD as advocated by my friend PRMerger.

Not sure what you’re saying here, Matt? Could you please clarify?

 

[Sufjon]

Hi, Sufjon,

I am not sure what the basis is for introducing austerities into a genuine moral life - and how any of that actually provides for a religious experience. But, just to make sure we are all on the same page with the definition, I copied the following from Wiki - if you have a better definition, please share it.

“The New Age movement is a Western spiritual movement that developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Its central precepts have been described as “drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and then infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics”.[2] It aims to create “a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas” that is inclusive and pluralistic.[3] Another of its primary traits is holding to “a holistic worldview,”[4] thereby emphasising that the Mind, Body and Spirit are interrelated[1] and that there is a form of Monism and unity throughout the universe.[5] It further attempts to create “a worldview that includes both science and spirituality”[6] and thereby embraces a number of forms of science and pseudoscience.”

Notice how God (the Creator of All) is avoided… but gods abound.

Self-flogging and wearing uncomfortable items so as to produce pain are not virtuous acts - virtue comes from our intention. St. Paul (1Cor 9:27) tells us that he was actively engaged in bringing his body under control - but he did this for closer union with Christ - not just to infict pain on himself.

Actually, I think that the characterization of New Age as, “…offer(ing) slack values and a free booting lifestyle…” is right on target - and I certainly would not disagree with that. Ultimately, Christ hit the nail squarely on the head (Matt 7:16) when He said, “By their fruits, you will know them…”. Just what has been the outcome of New Age if not as described above? Now, there have been some naturally good outcomes - but, be advised that total evil and depravity with no redeeming features is reserved for Hell alone…

Being a good steward is not an option (1Pet 4:10) but a genuine requirement. Making a god of nature, however, is just another wrapping for paganism to disguise itself in. Honest.

And, really leading a naturally moral life (not stealing or killing your neighbor, correcting evils, pointing out political corruption and attempting to have all men do good for one another. I think this would characterize the lifes of many of the Ancient Greeks (and just a few of he Ancient Romans). But, these (even as refreshing as they would be today) are just natural virtues with no view of God in their act.

Looking for the ‘genuineness’ in others is tricky at best… especially in individuals joining a religioous group or cult whose existence is measured in hours. Besides, no matter how strongly and sincerely we believe 2 + 2 = 5 … we are still objectively wrong. I realize that God judges the heart (1Sam 16:7) but we are not allowed to willfully engage in self-deception (“I don’t want to believe that because it conflicts with what I want to do to myself and others.” may be a fair characterization)

I think PRmerger hit the nail on the head.

God bless

Who is more genuine? One who does good for the sake of being good, or one who does good in the hopes of some reward in the afterlife? Sounds like tit for tat to me. It only works if you WANT to be good, not because one fears the pangs of hell or hopes for heaven, but in their heart still wants to be bad. Such a person has achieved little.

As far as hurting yourself, you can say what you will, but that is a perversion anyway you look at it. It is simply sick. Now, I have often wondered about Paul. We know he hunted Christians and that he was sociopathic. Did he stop being a sociopath when he told everyone that he converted, or did he become a converted sociopath? Did Jesus and Moses flog themselves? Yes, I know Jesus was flogged, but did He flog himself? I have studied the life of Paul some. He may be an important figure to you, but I would not let him near my family, much less let him help shape what I believe.

By the way, I have asked this question many times before and never gotten much of a reply. Who else saw Paul encounter Jesus on the road to Damascus? Did any eye witnesses give a written account of it other than Paul? Anyway, I see three choices:

1. Being that he was a sociopath who hunted Christians, he had a paranoid delusion that the thing he was persecuting came after him, so he converted, but remained a disturbed zealot even in his new endeavor (early leader of the Church). This is classic psychotic behavior by the way. Read some of the things he wrote, and then go interview some mental patients.
2. He realized that he couldn’t wipe out Christianity one person at a time, so he merely said he converted, and since he could write, was able to do a good deal of damage to the new religion Jesus by getting in at the ground floor.
3. He was a sick guy who converted, albeit a sick guy who could write.

Is there a fourth option?

Your friend
Sufjon