Why Not?

[George_2007]

Here is a tiny handfull of “evidence”:

Imperator Caesar Augustus, Son of a God, Father of his Country, the man who had ruled the Roman world alone for almost 45 years, or over half a century if the triumviral period is included, was dead. He was accorded a magnificent funeral, buried in the mausoleum he had built in Rome, and entered the Roman pantheon as Divus Augustus. [my emphasis]. In his will, he left 1,000 sesterces apiece to the men of the Praetorian guard, 500 to the urban cohorts, and 300 to each of the legionaries. In death, as in life, Augustus acknowledged the true source of his power. [Dio 55.33.5, 55.34.2, 56.26.2-3, 56.28.1-2; see also Southern, 181-90. Tiberius’s position: Suet. Tib. 21.1; Vell. Pat. 2.121.1.]
The inscription entitled “The Achievements of the Divine Augustus” (Res Gestae Divi Augustae; usually abbreviated RG) remains a remarkable piece of evidence deriving from Augustus’s reign. The fullest copy of it is the bilingual Greek and Latin version carved into the walls of the Temple of Rome and Augustus at Ancyra in Galatia (for this reason the RG used to be commonly referred to as the Monumentum Ancyranum). Original position of the RG: RG pr.; Suet. Aug. 101.4. ). For a recent analysis, see Ramage, Nature and Purpose.

As to Gaius Caligula, Gaius’s enthusiasm for divine honors for himself and his favorite sister, Drusilla (who died suddenly in A.D. 38 and was deified), is presented in the sources as another clear sign of his madness, but it may be no more than the young autocrat tactlessly pushing the limits of the imperial cult, already established under Augustus. [All further described most fully by Josephus (AJ 18.261-309; BJ 2.184-203) and Philo (Leg. 188, 198-348). Thorough modern assessments can be found in Barrett, Caligula, 188-91, cf. 140-53 (on Gaius’s demand for divine honours, which some argue are exaggerated by the sources); Bilde “Statue in the Temple”; and Smallwood, Jews (above, note [8]), 174-80. Drusilla: Suet. Gaius 24.2-3; Dio 59.11; Smallwood, Documents Illustrating, nos 5.12-15, 11, 128, 401.12; Wood, "Diva Drusilla

Vespasian died peacefully - at Aquae Cutiliae near his birthplace in Sabine country on 23 June, A.D. 79, after contracting a brief illness. The occasion is said to have inspired his deathbed quip: “Oh my, I must be turning into a god!” In fact, public deification did follow his death, as did his internment in the Mausoleum of Augustus alongside the Julio-Claudians. [see Suet. Vesp. 23]

I tire of besting you. Good day. :tiphat:

This is lovely evidence, but what is it evidence of? It is evidence that Roman rulers were deified, by themselves and their successors. What this proves about the Catholic Church is nothing. Your argument is based on evolutionary thinking. If similarities can been seen in the past to some event or phenomenon, then the past event or phenomenon must be the explanation to the later one. Myths about gods or god-like figures rising from the dead are seen predating the New Testament, so the Christian resurrection story was surely borrowed from those myths. Deifying leaders was done all the time in ancient Rome, therefore any later exaltation must have evolved from those early ones.

 

[Realist]

Easy the teachings of Jesus Christ. There are no gods. There is only ONE GOD. There are false gods, as Jesus Christ told us, But only one True God. I learned that when I was like 4

Or if you want to do it in your twisted way of thinking, we know there are many gods that are false. Because Jesus told us! He said stay the heck away from em!

He said stay out of the dark and into the light!!!

Thanks for the enlightening response. Good to see you’re trying hard to engage other perspectives.

 

[Realist]

Like Atheiests, however, an Agnositc will be suspect of men, the writings and religious institutions of men and the stories of men that purport to know and define God which Agnositcs will view as simply a contrivance that allows some men to control vast numbers of other men.

As an agnostic, I disagree. I do not claim to know what ethereal evidence others have to support their beliefs. I believe I cannot know whether or not people who claim to have experienced miracles, for instance, have actually experienced them. They may certainly have, but because I haven’t, I cannot draw the same conclusions they have.

 

[Realist]

Nope, I’m suggesting that the only reasonable option is to actively search for the truth. Agnosticism implies giving up. While at some point you do have to make a leap of faith, that is not the first step when it comes to learning the truth.

How does agnosticism imply giving up? That’s an absurd conclusion. One could just as easily conclude that agnosticism implies searching.

 

[Nine_Two]

How does agnosticism imply giving up? That’s an absurd conclusion. One could just as easily conclude that agnosticism implies searching.

A student, when asked, will not claim ignorence on a matter of study, but will claim to be seeking the answers. By claiming ignorence one is saying they are not seeking answers.

 

[Realist]

A student, when asked, will not claim ignorence on a matter of study, but will claim to be seeking the answers. By claiming ignorence one is saying they are not seeking answers.

I’ll pretend for a moment that you meant “ignorance” rather than “ignorence,” but I can’t help seeing the irony. Anyway, you are the one ascribing “ignorance” as the weightiest word regarding agnosticism. Keep that in mind. It’s you. Some people might agree with you, but not all of us. Agnosticism can be about giving up. It can also be about seeking the truth that we do not yet know. Do everyone a favor and stop putting them in your useless boxes.

 

[Realist]

Nope, I’m suggesting that the only reasonable option is to actively search for the truth. Agnosticism implies giving up. While at some point you do have to make a leap of faith, that is not the first step when it comes to learning the truth.

I know I’ve addressed this quote earlier, but I’d like to go back to it. You mention that faith is required in the “search for truth.” I don’t understand how that can be, but maybe you can help point me in the right direction by enlightening me on the “first step when it comes to learning the truth.” What is that first step exactly? I sure hope it’s accepting a premise that can’t be proven or argued through reason. fingers crossed

 

[Nine_Two]

I know I’ve addressed this quote earlier, but I’d like to go back to it. You mention that faith is required in the “search for truth.” I don’t understand how that can be, but maybe you can help point me in the right direction by enlightening me on the “first step when it comes to learning the truth.” What is that first step exactly? I sure hope it’s accepting a premise that can’t be proven or argued through reason. fingers crossed

No, faith is not necessary to begin the search for truth, although at some point it does become a requirement.

The first step is trying to understand what is believed, and why. Uncover the core axioms on which the faiths are based, for it is to these axioms, and nothing else (One does not accept a religion based on its beliefs but based on its conceptualization of the divine) to which one must eventually make the leap of faith.

 

[Realist]

No, faith is not necessary to begin the search for truth, although at some point it does become a requirement.

The first step is trying to understand what is believed, and why. Uncover the core axioms on which the faiths are based, for it is to these axioms, and nothing else (One does not accept a religion based on its beliefs but based on its conceptualization of the divine) to which one must eventually make the leap of faith.

So let me boil this down. You go out and have a look at the religion buffet. You see what lines up with your own self-interest (“its conceptualization of the divine”) and then because you have no way to prove or disprove the truth of the religion, you say, “Alright, good enough. I’m going with that one.” Am I missing the nuance in your description?

 

[mommamia]

What does Catholic mean to you??

I am “Catholic”. I was baptized, sent to parish school, married in the Church. My own children were baptized, sent to the parish school, my oldest just confirmed.

But I disagree with so many of the teachings, and many I just don’t think are important. I learned a long time ago that the presence of the one true God is everywhere, and available to all who search earnestly for it.

I don’t want to read what Paul said, I want to have the same relationship that Paul had. When I’m standing there on judgement day, I don’t want to try the lame excuse “but I was following what my religious leaders said”.

And it annoys me that if you disagree, you will be told you don’t understand. I’m not stupid, I do understand the teachings of the Church, I just happen to think that they are wrong.

 

[PJM]

=mommamia;6264322]What does Catholic mean to you??

I am “Catholic”. I was baptized, sent to parish school, married in the Church. My own children were baptized, sent to the parish school, my oldest just confirmed.

But I disagree with so many of the teachings, and many I just don’t think are important. I learned a long time ago that the presence of the one true God is everywhere, and available to all who search earnestly for it.

I don’t want to read what Paul said, I want to have the same relationship that Paul had. When I’m standing there on judgement day, I don’t want to try the lame excuse “but I was following what my religious leaders said”.

And it annoys me that if you disagree, you will be told you don’t understand. I’m not stupid, I do understand the teachings of the Church, I just happen to think that they are wrong.

My dear friend in Christ,

God is on your side, and from my perspective He wants for you exactly what you articulated in your post.

So now the questions seems to be how badly “do you want it?”

My next statement is going to require some prayerful and deep reflection in order for you to accept it *.

Paul, like all the Saints were able to come into close, intimate and personal relationship with Christ [not simply “God” which seems rather vague] based on what they understood about “God” and what Christ teaches about “God,” through His WORDS n His life. In other words, the kind of relationship you [and all of should seek] has to began its formation by clearly understading what we beleive and why these particular beliefs are held. There is no short cut unless such knowledge is Divinely Infused; not impossible, but darn near. One does not fall “heads over heals in love” based solely on a perceived notion of th “lover.” Its in geting to REALY know them, that bonds love.

So my advice is first be sure to have a disiplinined and active prayer and Sacramental life, then ATTACK one issue at a time until you not simply "know it, BUT actually understand it. As you grasp more and more the depth of Chrsit an His Church fo you; yor love, yor relationship will become more and more personal and powerful.

Unless and until you gain this kind of insight, you will be unable to break the barrier of a superficial VERY personal relationship with Christ.

Let me know how I may assit you on this journey of love and faith, which can hardly be seperated.

If you think the teachings of the “church are wrong,” its because while you may know WHAT they are, you don’t understand fully WHY they are. Its in really understanding [which requires God’s direct intervention of Grace towards Faith] which makes the difference.

Love and prayers,
Tanks for what you have done fo your kids!*

 

[mommamia]

My dear friend in Christ,

God is on your side, and from my perspective He wants for you exactly what you articulated in your post.

So now the questions seems to be how badly “do you want it?”

Want what? I am actually quite happy with my relationship with the Creator. It permeates everything I do in this life.

next statement is going to require some prayerful and deep reflection in order for you to accept it *.

Paul, like all the Saints were able to come into close, intimate and personal relationship with Christ [not simply “God” which seems rather vague] based on what they understood about “God” and what Christ teaches about “God,” through His WORDS n His life. In other words, the kind of relationship you [and all of should seek] has to began its formation by clearly understading what we beleive and why these particular beliefs are held. There is no short cut unless such knowledge is Divinely Infused; not impossible, but darn near. One does not fall “heads over heals in love” based solely on a perceived notion of th “lover.” Its in geting to REALY know them, that bonds love.*

Umm, Paul was persecuting the followers of Christ. It is silly to say he had some sort of knowledge of who Christ *really *was. And most Christians are so busy “praying” that they fail to take the time to engage in meditative silence in which they have a chance to listen to the Spirit. Divinely infused, absolutely, but how can one know exactly what to believe without experience? As in your experience with falling in love, one cannot just imagine, and hear other peoples perception of your lover. You must meet them personally, and spend time both talking and listening before the true bonds of real love can form. Its the same with the Creator, you cannot go to Him with another’s idea of what He is, you must go with an open mind and learn about Him, through Him.
PJM;6264468:

my advice is first be sure to have a disiplinined and active prayer and Sacramental life, then ATTACK one issue at a time until you not simply "know it, BUT actually understand it. As you grasp more and more the depth of Chrsit an His Church fo you; yor love, yor relationship will become more and more personal and powerful.

Unless and until you gain this kind of insight, you will be unable to break the barrier of a superficial VERY personal relationship with Christ.

Agreed, prayerful communication with the Spirit of the Creator is the most important part of everything. However, Christ is not God, not the Creator supreme. He is one of his children, like you and I. A more highly evolved and enlightened child. One who came to try to show us the way. But just a child of God. We all have the ability to be Christ, to have the same relationship with the Creator as Christ. He is not a God to be worshiped, but a prophet to be respected and emulated.

.

you think the teachings of the “church are wrong,” its because while you may know WHAT they are, you don’t understand fully WHY they are. Its in really understanding [which requires God’s direct intervention of Grace towards Faith] which makes the difference.

Love and prayers,
Tanks for what you have done fo your kids!

No, I understand the “WHY”. I just still think they are wrong. I know you will continue to argue that of course I don’t really understand, but I do. At least I understand how the Church tries to justify its edicts and rules. And while my kids are exposed to Catholicism, they are also exposed to my true belief’s, and their (non-Catholic) father’s.

I like to think of us as “culturally” Catholic. Its a deeply ingrained part of my families culture, therefore we continue to do some of the things expected. But I still disagree with many of the teachings of the Church, and frankly am a little disturbed by any institution which prohibits its priests from the fullness of family life, yet feels free to make all kinds of um, detailed laws about what is and isn’t permitted sexually in my marriage. Or that has all kinds of silly tecnicallities, similar to the religion of the Pharisee’s, whom Jesus came to change. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the institution that is the Catholic Church is pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus came to teach.

That said, many Catholics I know somehow despite the Church live the best example of Christian love I have ever seen. Many now and historically are truly examples of God’s love on this earth. And some are just mean, petty and caught up in the little things and all to quick to condemn someone to hell for any little thing that their precious (if misguided) “Church” teaches is wrong. All in all as Christian Churches go, the Catholic church is IMHO, the best of the group. But its not enough for me.

 

[Justin_Mee]

Want what? I am actually quite happy with my relationship with the Creator. It permeates everything I do in this life.

Umm, Paul was persecuting the followers of Christ. It is silly to say he had some sort of knowledge of who Christ *really *was. And most Christians are so busy “praying” that they fail to take the time to engage in meditative silence in which they have a chance to listen to the Spirit. Divinely infused, absolutely, but how can one know exactly what to believe without experience? As in your experience with falling in love, one cannot just imagine, and hear other peoples perception of your lover. You must meet them personally, and spend time both talking and listening before the true bonds of real love can form. Its the same with the Creator, you cannot go to Him with another’s idea of what He is, you must go with an open mind and learn about Him, through Him.

Agreed, prayerful communication with the Spirit of the Creator is the most important part of everything. However, Christ is not God, not the Creator supreme. He is one of his children, like you and I. A more highly evolved and enlightened child. One who came to try to show us the way. But just a child of God. We all have the ability to be Christ, to have the same relationship with the Creator as Christ. He is not a God to be worshiped, but a prophet to be respected and emulated.

.

No, I understand the “WHY”. I just still think they are wrong. I know you will continue to argue that of course I don’t really understand, but I do. At least I understand how the Church tries to justify its edicts and rules. And while my kids are exposed to Catholicism, they are also exposed to my true belief’s, and their (non-Catholic) father’s.

I like to think of us as “culturally” Catholic. Its a deeply ingrained part of my families culture, therefore we continue to do some of the things expected. But I still disagree with many of the teachings of the Church, and frankly am a little disturbed by any institution which prohibits its priests from the fullness of family life, yet feels free to make all kinds of um, detailed laws about what is and isn’t permitted sexually in my marriage. Or that has all kinds of silly tecnicallities, similar to the religion of the Pharisee’s, whom Jesus came to change. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the institution that is the Catholic Church is pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus came to teach.

That said, many Catholics I know somehow despite the Church live the best example of Christian love I have ever seen. Many now and historically are truly examples of God’s love on this earth. And some are just mean, petty and caught up in the little things and all to quick to condemn someone to hell for any little thing that their precious (if misguided) “Church” teaches is wrong. All in all as Christian Churches go, the Catholic church is IMHO, the best of the group. But its not enough for me.

Do I detect a new book in the works? RELIGION ACCORDING TO MOMMAMIA

 

[mommamia]

Do I detect a new book in the works? RELIGION ACCORDING TO MOMMAMIA

Nah, probably not, though I do have a nice collection of published papers.

However, I do enjoy sharing my experiences with those who have an open mind, and learning from their insight as well.

 

[Justin_Mee]

Nah, probably not, though I do have a nice collection of published papers.

However, I do enjoy sharing my experiences with those who have an open mind, and learning from their insight as well.

As a new member and a new Catholic, I am constantly amazed at those who say they are ‘Catholic’ however, they just don’t believe:

1. [insert list here]

Please quit fooling yourselves. You are not Catholic. Maybe in the future; when all the ‘searching’ is done. But, not now.

 

[Nine_Two]

So let me boil this down. You go out and have a look at the religion buffet. You see what lines up with your own self-interest (“its conceptualization of the divine”) and then because you have no way to prove or disprove the truth of the religion, you say, “Alright, good enough. I’m going with that one.” Am I missing the nuance in your description?

You are.

Clearly claiming ignorence is not the truth. So you go out and search for it. Which Axioms actually make sense, coupled with what beliefs are attached to that axiom and how consistently. For example the Muslim and Fundamentalist Christian axiom that their holy book provides the whole truth free from any error of any kind - you see bits that are incorrect in their holy books, you can then throw away the axiom on which they are based. It is most certainly not about self-interest, and if that is all you are going for you are not seeking truth.

The bottom line is, that no matter what is out there, saying “I don’t know” and leaving it at that is certainly not the rational position.

 

[George_2007]

As a new member and a new Catholic, I am constantly amazed at those who say they are ‘Catholic’ however, they just don’t believe:

1. [insert list here]

Please quit fooling yourselves. You are not Catholic. Maybe in the future; when all the ‘searching’ is done. But, not now.

Let’s be careful here. Of course, there are those who are in open or secret protest to the teachings of the Church. But “don’t believe” in the sense that one is questioning, struggling, or searching, trying to figure things out does absolutely not mean you’re not Catholic or that you’re kidding yourself. I heard this straight from my Archbishop’s mouth. Questioning is OK, struggling is OK and searching is OK. It’s protesting that is not OK.

 

[Justin_Mee]

The bottom line is, that no matter what is out there, saying “I don’t know” and leaving it at that is certainly not the rational position.

I love to play golf. A golfer need to know the wind conditions. I can’t see the wind but I can feel it against my face. I can toss a handful of grass into the sky and observe the results of the wind. The same can be said of Christ. I can’t see Him, but I can feel him against my cheek. I can observe the results of Him in my life. I don’t need to gaze upon His body to be absolutely sure He is present. I need not ‘search’ for Him anymore than I need to search for the wind. He is constantly present. Just throw a handful of your problems into a prayer and observe. Just don’t expect the answer to your prayers to always be ‘yes’. Just because I know the wind conditions, does not mean my ball will always land near the cup. Sometimes God wants us to practice our 30 foot putts.

 

[Publisher]

***My dear friend in Christ,

It would seem that I have misplaced my communicaton skills [assuming on my part that I had same to misplace?

Historically, the CC has been under continual persecution before it was even formaly announced by Christ as told in Mt. 16:15-19. And verifid in numerious other places. I once did a “One Church” bible search and founf 37 such references in the NT. That persecution has never ended, and has just taken different form and topics over h centuries.

In rereading my post, I was indeed too personal; but I was only seeking to find out what you believe or understand. If I came across with a lack of charity; PLEASE fogive me. ****

***Faith is always a gift from God. Some make use of it in a fuller and “truer” sense than do others. I don’t ever recall making fun of others beliefs; even though at times, I am simply amazed at what some folks who choose to call themselves “Christians” hold as truth when it is so clearly refuted in the Bible.

I do assume one of two reasons for non-Catholics to dialog on this Forum. Either they have questions about what. why, and how we beleive and Practice our faith, or they wish to demonistrate “where we are wrong.” In the case of the latter; explaining my Faith can and easily becomes “defending” our Catholic Faith, which, I admit can get out of hand. If I have done so with you, again I’m offering sincere appologies.***

***If you consider yourself and your faith “Christian”, one assumes you accept the Bible? The Bible is a Catholic Book, having been birthed through the CC.

I frankly have no problem with people disagreeing with me and my Catholic Faith beliefs beyond actually not listening to what we share and the evidence we present as support of our faith. I do find it useful though to try to understand the people, not just there positions, when there is disagreement. And that was the purpose of my post.

Love and prayers,
Pat***

Apology accepted.

I do accept the scritpures as a witness to the Light…but they are not the Light.

Scripture was never intended to replace the Light Within…but compliment it. While it was the Catholic/Orthodox traditions which preserved the writings fo those first centuries which later were compiled as “scritpure”…I do not accept that the writers of the NT were “Catholic” but came from a diverse group of people and diverse communities which were compiled by those of like mind.

Catholicism was unknown at that time…like the other traditions which developed along side of the “Catholic/Orthodox” traditions…those traditions were later called “heretic”…understood…the Catholic/Orthodox taditions came to be the dominant form of Christianity…it is an interesting historical development…but hardly reason to believe it is the “only true” Christianity…or those whom it named “heretic” as evil people…perhaps very misguided in the mind of Catholic/Orthodox thought…but I do not see “heretics”…I see other Christians who were struggling…the same as I and the same as the “proto/orthodox-catholic” tradition…to understand who this man Jesus was.

It would probably come as a surprise to you that I would call our Mormon friends and Jehovah’s Witness friends “Christians”. They seek to follow the Light Within just as faithfully as you do…and as I do…but I do not believe any of us have a monopoly on Truth…while the various tradtions of Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon and JW each claim to be the “True Faith”…each of you disagrees with the other…I am a Seeker and it is through Quakerism that I have found the tools to “walk in the Light”…and I have found the Society of Friends the best community to assist me in our corporated Journey through this world.

The rites and rituals adopted by the Catholic/Orthodox traditions are beautiful…but they do not “move me” to accept them simply because they developed into the dominant forms and rituals those people who called themselves “Christians”.

I do not discard religious history in favor of a more secular history…but I seek to blend the two…religious history of the development of the Christian church is fraught with "magic’ and “miracles”…and while I can appreciate those mystical experiences…I do not consider those mystical experiences “proof” of a continuity of the “true faith” preserved through the mythic “apostolic succession”…as a Friend, I do not rest on the laurels of those who have gone before me…but do I seek to learn from them…but we must “own” the faith today in our own time and place and experience the same God and Inward Light and virtue in which they lived…that is what Quakerism seeks to do…to point us to the Way to the Light…to “work out our own salvation” and sometimes this “working” does have it’s pitfalls and “fear and tremblings” as we seek to take responsibility for what we believe and how we live.

Elton Trueblood is a contemporary Friend…he wrote… “It is missing the point to ask “What does a Quaker believe?” What is far more relevant is ask how a Quaker seeks to relate to than on which he unltimately depends.”

I will never explain Quakerism to your satisfaction…you cannot “proove” Catholicism to me as I do not accept your “faith story” and “religious history” as fact…but as a mythic retelling of how the CC came to be and it’s developing belief about itself…but to me that “mythic story” is lacking.

I have found in the Society of Friends the tools to “work out my own salvation”…and often there is “fear and trembling (quaking)”.

 

[Realist]

You are.

Clearly claiming ignorence is not the truth. So you go out and search for it. Which Axioms actually make sense, coupled with what beliefs are attached to that axiom and how consistently. For example the Muslim and Fundamentalist Christian axiom that their holy book provides the whole truth free from any error of any kind - you see bits that are incorrect in their holy books, you can then throw away the axiom on which they are based. It is most certainly not about self-interest, and if that is all you are going for you are not seeking truth.

I am simply unable to relent reason like you are, and, make no mistake, that’s what you must do in the search you’ve described. So I’m supposed to test each religion against what it claims to be, and then once I’ve widdled down the list to just one or two (I haven’t personally done this, so maybe you can give me some insight into just how many and which religions stand up to this test), I just pick one and go with it? In what way does this test reveal the truth of a religion? It seems to me that all it does is reveal fallacies in some religions, thereby strengthening the ethos of the religions able to stand up to the test. No reasonable person could conclude from such a test that even the remaining religions contain “The Truth”. So I must be missing a step. What do I do after I’ve run the test and concluded religions x, y and x have passed? Is there another test?

The bottom line is, that no matter what is out there, saying “I don’t know” and leaving it at that is certainly not the rational position.

You are unrelenting with this silly “ignorance” (by the way, you really ought to learn to spell that word correctly–it’s becoming embarrassing) argument. I encourage you to drop it. Here’s why: if one does not know something (assuming there is something to know), one is ignorant of that something; if one is privy to the idea that one is missing something (a lesser shade of ignorance) then one can begin the process of understanding that something, but during that search for understanding one is still ignorant of that something. Do you see what I’m saying? Searching or no searching, one remains ignorant.

There is no specificity in your language, so I can’t understand your argument. I think you’re trying to use “ignorance” to mean something it doesn’t. Either way, you absolutely cannot judge whether another person is searching or not searching, and you especially cannot make that judgment based solely on the philosophy of faith to which they subscribe. But let’s assume we can. If I am indeed searching for some religious truth, what should I say I am? If I can’t say I’m agnostic because that somehow means I’ve given up and that I’m forever ignorant and unopen to changing my position (it means none of these things, of course, but you seem dead set on this definition so I’m humoring you for a moment) then what should I say I am?