Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

[Genghis_Bob]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**. . . the Bible talks about a loving God, but it also talks about a vengeful and wrathful God as well. . . **

A lot of the problem in Biblical exegesis starts when people look at the Bible as a collection of set-pieces standing apart from one another. In such a context, it’s reasonable to conclude that the various descriptions of God present either an inconstant deity, or reveals a lack of concord among the writers as to the nature of God.

When I (and a lot of other Christians) look at the Bible, I see a continuum. It’s a story of the changing relationship between man and God. What changes, I believe, is man’s understanding of the nature of God and his plan for creation. The story begins very generally, almost exclusively with metaphor as man tries to understand the world, his place in it, and his relationship with God. As God reveals himself to man throughout history, our understanding of God’s nature becomes refined, more specific, culminating in a very discrete relationship with God-as-man in Jesus.

Looking at the Bible as a story with a beginning, middle and “end”, with characters developing and learning, the overall arc of the story is toward an understanding of God as loving, giving and desiring an intimate relationship with man. This overall nature of God, as gleaned from the entire text, is the “lens” through which we examine any particular piece of scripture.

Is God wrathful and vengeful? Perhaps, as would be any person. But his nature is certainly more merciful and giving, based on the “conclusion” of the story.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by rimshotgdansk *
Is God wrathful and vengeful? Perhaps, as would be any person.

Not that you’re in any way anthropormophizing God, of course, right?

[godzillatemple]

Errrr… make that “anthropomorphizing.”

[Genghis_Bob]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Not that you’re in any way anthropormophizing God, of course, right? **

. . . no, more like the other way around. I’m imbuing humans with a characteristic of God - personhood.

My basis for this lies in Genesis; you know, “let us make man in our own image,” etc. I don’t believe God is a balding, out-of-shape midwestern white guy, so I have to look for a broader interpretation of what “in his image” means. The characteristic in man that seems universal is individuality, personhood, extending even to “free will” (although I know some Lutherans would argue with me on this last point).

So, no, I don’t think I’m anthropomorphizing God; I think I’m deomorphizing man.

[xenophon41]

godzillatemple:

…Poly and the rest have to make a decision about God’s nature first, and then choose which parts of the Bible to accept based on whether they accord with this decision (as opposed to determining the nature of God solely by reading the Bible and using “analysis” to figure out which parts were “really” said by Christ, etc.)

Assuming for the sake of your argument that a subjective apprehension of God’s nature is a “decision”, in what way does starting from such an apprehension point to inconsistency or lack of rigor in one’s subsequent textual analysis?

As an aside, doesn’t it strike you that for someone who has a subjective experience which he identifies as an apprehension of God, attempting to “analyze” biblical text without subjective interpretation would be like trying to determine which kind of apples he likes by a secondhand description of each tree?

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
Assuming for the sake of your argument that a subjective apprehension of God’s nature is a “decision”, in what way does starting from such an apprehension point to inconsistency or lack of rigor in one’s subsequent textual analysis?

It only points to inconsistency or lack of rigor in one’s subsequent textual analysis when one then goes on to claim that one’s “subjective apprehension of God’s nature” is derived from careful analysis the text itself.

Let’s say there are two statements which seemingly contradict each other, one of which Poly accepts and the other of which he rejects. When asked to justify rejecting one of the statements, his logic appears (to me, at least) to be along the lines of the following:

Q: How does one know that statement B (e.g., that divorce is wrong, that sinners will be cast into a lake of fire, etc.) should be rejected?
A: Because it contradicts statement A (e.g., that we are supposed to “love our neighbors as oursleves”).

Q: Well, then how do you know Statement A should be accepted?
A: Because Jesus is reported to have said it.

Q: But Jesus is ALSO reported have said Statement B.
A: Well, he either didn’t really say it, or else it has been misinterpreted.

Q: How do you know that?
A: Well, because it contradicts Statement A, of course.

Repeat as often as necessary until the other side retreats in frustration.

Barry

[xenophon41]

I’m not going to answer for Poly, 'zillatemple, but I just want to say that I’ll be sorely amazed if you can provide a link to someplace where he’s claimed his “…‘subjective apprehension of God’s nature’ is derived from careful analysis” of biblical text!

[godzillatemple]

xenophon41: Well, I doub’t I’ll ever be able to finde a cite where Poly used those exact words, since I was quoting you in the first place.

But if you look back a couple of pages in this thread, you’ll find a lengthy post by Poly wherein he admits that “I’m certain that I, and other liberal Christians including theologians), rationalize to a far greater extent than we’re prepared to admit to anyone, including ourselves” and “I am making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid.” But where does he claim to get this “moral standard” in the first place? Why, from the Bible, of course:

The point underlying this is that that moral standard was, we are told by the very Bible at question, taught by the Man Who is supposed to have the supreme authority to teach and command, a much better understanding of God’s Will (being Himself God the Son) than Paul, Moses, and the rest of the supporting cast, and whom we Christians have taken as Savior and Lord.

What it comes down to, when the neoprene hits the asphalt, is this: one can choose to interpret the teachings of Jesus by a standard that (extraBiblically) presumes the Bible to be the unalloyed Word of God, to be accepted and followed unquestioningly; or one can choose to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus. IMHO, for a committed Christian there is only one proper choice.

I am, I suppose, reading the text to justify my beliefs, rather than to shape them – but I’m doing it on the basis of a commitment to follow the source of those beliefs.

The fact that Poly “choose[s] interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus” presupposes that he actually KNOWS what statements ascribed to Jesus in the bible were actually made by him, and in other threads he has talked about determining this via a careful analysis of the text. For example, in this thread, **Poly stated:

In Jesus… we have God the Son Incarnate as a human being. Granted that He did not write anything that has survived, and that the four Evangelists wrote with their own agendas, as I noted, one can “read past” the particular idees fixés of each by reference to the others. In particular, Luke is careful to note that he employed the best First Century historiography in composing his Gospel. If you discount the idea that Matthew was trying to portray Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (grist for an interesting thread, with Izzy and cmk exploring why Judaism has disagreed with his conclusions), that Luke was looking at a “humanistic Jesus,” that Mark was portraying “the Son of God” who was insistent on keeping His Messiahship a secret, and that John’s Jesus is transcendent and tends to discourse rather than teach in parables and pithy sayings as the Synoptic portraits suggest, then you can arrive at a view of a man on whose character and teachings they agree.

So, there you have it. Poly admits that he is guilty of rationalization and making subjective judgments, but then justifies these judgments and rationalizations by claiming to have discovered the true words of Jesus through careful analysis of the Bible.

Barry

[xenophon41]

Again, not speaking for Polycarp, but IMO that’s a personal comprehension of moral instruction. Sure, it’s subjective, but it’s based on an intellectual understanding, a real analysis of the written word in its historical context. But that intellectual understanding of Christ’s instructions is not an apprehension of Christ’s nature, which is a perceptual and irrational understanding derived from experience rather than induction.

We keep coming back I think to your understandable intellectual distaste for that nonrational starting point in Poly’s heart, rather than the process which unfolds in Poly’s mind. (Although, I must say I don’t think your Q&A construction is a completely accurate representation of Poly’s mental process.) The moral standard is understood through reason, but it’s confirmed through perception; hence, the “rationalization” Poly admits to.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
Again, not speaking for Polycarp, but IMO that’s a personal comprehension of moral instruction. Sure, it’s subjective, but it’s based on an intellectual understanding, a real analysis of the written word in its historical context. But that intellectual understanding of Christ’s instructions is not an apprehension of Christ’s nature, which is a perceptual and irrational understanding derived from experience rather than induction.

Well, I guess we’ll have to wait for Poly to speak for himself, then.

We keep coming back I think to your understandable intellectual distaste for that nonrational starting point in Poly’s heart, rather than the process which unfolds in Poly’s mind.

No, that’s not really it. I think it’s perfectly valid to have a nonrational starting point, and one doesn’t have to justify all of one’s beliefs. One need not come up with a comprehensive moral philosophy to declare that one believes that treating other people with respect is a good idea, for example.

What I have a distaste for is when somebody tries to explain why their “nonrational starting point” is, in fact, perfectly rational and based on an analysis of the Bible that any “good christian” will surely agree with. And I further have a distaste for explanations that rely on circular reasoning. But that’s just me.

Although, I must say I don’t think your Q&A construction is a completely accurate representation of Poly’s mental process.

Completely accurate? Perhaps not. Pretty darn close, though. Or so I believe.

Barry

[Kalhoun]

The part that confuses me is where people say they don’t worship the bible, when virtually everything a person knows about Jesus is derived from the bible (or from conversations with people who derive their opinion from the bible). It’s the age-old question: Which came first, the Jesus or the Bible?

Since this is where our ideas of Jesus come from, how can you say that this was fact and that was fiction? It would stand to reason that ALL of it is accurate.

[godzillatemple]

xenophon: Here’s another example of what I was talking about, once again from a few pages back in this very thread:

Further, any person who would put credence in the Bible at all would concur that some parts are of more value than others for the guidance of human life, etc. The Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commission, etc., speak to people much more than the book of Obadiah or the first nine chapters of I Chronicles with their interminable geneaologies.

There being a view that Jesus is Lord to a Christian, it follows that what one can form a reasonable assurance are His words and teachings are supreme in the context in which they were given. That this is important is self-evident in the variant understandings expressed in this very thread about the teaching on divorce. It’s the view of liberals and moderates alike that Jesus was not laying down an absolute commandment against divorce so much as he was condemning the idea of divorce for convenience. The principle – of the permanency of marriage – is absolute, but circumstances alter cases.

In any case, what I feel is proper is to apply the tests of textual criticism to the Gospels to establish insofar as possible what exactly Jesus did say, discounting the particular themes of the four Evangelists, and then, having arrived at an answer, apply it as a guide to interpreting how to apply (or not apply) the remainder of Scripture to one’s life.

There does remain the question of Jesus’s variations in speech patterns, his tendency to speak in ellipticalparable form and to invest familiar words with additional meanings (as in the I AM passages in John), and the items noted by badchad earlier in the thread. These do deserve addressing, but not in a legalistic context.

Here, once again, Poly claims that the words that are actually ascribed to Jesus must be given precedence and should be used to guide one’s intepretation of the rest of the Bible. Except, of course, when Jesus is alleged to have said something that Poly does not agree with, in which case it can be safely dismissed because “it’s the view of liberals and moderates alike” that Jesus didn’t really say what it says he said.

So does this mean that Poly is willing to admit that he disregards those parts of Jesus’ words that he disagrees with? Of course not. Instead, he states that he determines what Jesus really said by “apply[ing] the tests of textual criticism to the Gospels to establish insofar as possible what exactly Jesus did say, discounting the particular themes of the four Evangelists, and then, having arrived at an answer, apply[ing] it as a guide to interpreting how to apply (or not apply) the remainder of Scripture to one’s life.”

Here’s yet another example, from the thread I referred to earlier:

An analogy to Constitutional law may be useful. Just as a law duly passed is valid if and only if it falls within the powers allowed to the legislature passing it within the applicable Constitution(s), and only if it does not improperly restrict the rights which said Constitution(s) guarantee, so too the commands and teachings of Scripture are valid only as they fit the three commands which Jesus specified as encompassing all the Law and Prophets: the Two Great Commandments and the Golden Rule. Therefore we have him, not rejecting the keeping of the Sabbath, but defining a way of keeping it which rejects the legalistic fences about not traveling or doing work, but focuses on the doing of good for God and man.

In reading Scripture with this view, one always keeps in mind the cultural context in which the story was written, and the tendency of man to pass the buck. For an Israelite leader to justify genocide by alleging that God commanded it would be easy, and give a divine cachet to his policies (GWB recognizes this!); this does not necessarily mean that He did any such thing.

So my rule is, does this passage under consideration accord with the known teachings of Jesus, or does it seem to lie athwart what He condemned? I do not ask, “can my actions be justified by a reference to some Bible verse?” but rather “are my actions conformable to the ideals which Jesus pronounced as goals to which humans should strive?”

Again, Poly chooses which of Jesus’s sayings to include in his “known teachings” and then disregards the rest because they conflict with the small subset that he has selected as matching his own moral ethics.

Finally, once again from a few pages back:

This means that anyone claiming to follow Him, including msyelf and others who claim the title Christian, is obliged to espouse an ethics founded on what He taught. I summarize this as:

* The Two Great Commandments
* The Golden Rule
* The Great Commission
* Aspiration to a high standard of personal ethics
  [*Non-judgmentalism and acceptance of others as one's equals, entitled to one's love and respect
* Repentance and trust in God, accepting one's inability to live up to the ideals above outlined

• A quest for decent treatment for all and social justice, particularly for those oppressed by society historically

Why those particular statements by Jesus (The Two Great Commandments, the Gold Rule, the Great Commission) and not the other statements? Why state that the statements by Jesus regarding divorce and casting sinners into the flames should be rejected as contradicting the Two Great Commandments and the Gold Rule, instead of the other way around?

Barry

[Homebrew]

I reckon 'cause he said about the Royal Commandments that “on these two hang all of the Law and Prophets”.

[badchad]

Rock on Barry.

[xenophon41]

godzillatemple, where exactly is Poly losing you in his explanations? I’ll be buggered if I can see how you can get from the posts you’ve quoted to this conclusion:

Again, Poly chooses which of Jesus’s sayings to include in his “known teachings” and then disregards the rest because they conflict with the small subset that he has selected as matching his own moral ethics.

It makes me wonder if you even understand how the books of the Bible are structured, and where they come from? Since you seem to treat references to “Scripture” --which commonly refers to all Biblical canon, and which is also how Poly has consistently used the term-- as interchangeable with “Jesus’ sayings”, I have to conclude you would do well to read the five part Mailbag series on the subject. (I would hate to think you’re actually aware of the equivocation and continue to commit it anyway.)

In addition, you keep asserting that Poly has “rejected” Christ’s statements regarding divorce and Gehenna. This is patently incorrect and easily disproven within your own posts by Poly’s contextual analyses, which, rather than ignoring or rejecting, attempt to glean full meaning from those remarks! But I suppose it’s easier for you to say this is a “rejection” of Christ’s comments than to admit that Poly might just be paying closer attention to them than you do.

Good grief, g, when you hear the phrase “it’s raining cats and dogs” do you call your local animal shelter for an advisory? (Note that the question was rhetorical btw, should you feel compelled to take it as a an attempt on my part to actually determine your probable actions in the event such a colloquialism reaches your ears…)

[xenophon41]

Y’know, on reflection, I think I’ve made a mistake. I’ve been participating in this thread because I think it’s a good thing to let other intellectually constipated skeptics like me know that you can retain intellectual honesty without rejecting the parts of reality that can’t be explored through rationality. But that message becomes less effective through unvarying repetition.

The concept of contextual analysis is neither exceptionally difficult nor unique to theological examinations. Nor is it unique to Polycarp, nor even to modern Christian exegesis. I suspect both godzillatemple and badchad are far less obtuse regarding this sort of analysis than their posts would suggest. I suspect there’s an element of deliberateness to the technique of missing the point time after time.

Now I realize I only suspect that because I’m a cynical, untrusting prick. Yet because I’m also an argumentative bastard I keep feeding this thread anyway. But I think Tris was right back on page 1, and I regret adding fuel to this particular smoldering pit. I think I’ll just stop doing it.

[badchad]

Siege:

Badchad, you do realize that you could be seen as proselytizing as obnoxiously as any Fundamentalist Christian out there, don’t you?

I guess were all trying to save the world. Them from eternal torment and me from suicide bombers crashing into buildings and regular folks having their savings siphoned off 10% a paycheck under the euphemism tithing.

Why do you insist I choose one of two options, either of which are likely to leave me dead? If you want me dead that badly, please have the courtesy to kill me yourself.

I’m not quite sure how to answer that. I have a reasonable argument to make and based on your postings you agree it reasonable. The fact is that my argument is not with you but with Polycarp. When I engaged you, you were good enough to admit that your religion was a crutch and not based on reason, which while I don’t agree with your decisions, it is not something I care to take my time debating. Polycarp on the other hand seems unwilling to admit the same as such I carry forward. Also I find him quite pretentious, which helps my motivation, and I don’t find you that way. So while I think your beliefs are unreasonable I still think you’re fairly cool. Still I have no intention on backing away from my position, unless it is shown to my satisfaction that I am the one being unreasonable.

Yes, that’s harsh. However, you are insisting Polycarp and I give up something which has meaning and value and you are offering to replace it with nothing.

Well I don’t know if reality can replace delusions of grandure but here is what I would suggest.

First join a gym. Exercise not only increases your health but overwhelming evidence suggests that it helps with the treatment of depression.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=12392873

Also making small but measurable improvements is to me what happiness is all about and you get that with exercise. For what it’s worth don’t forget your strength training, and free weights are better than machines IMO. For what it’s worth this is my field (exercise not depression) and I get paid pretty well for my opinion.

Second find Bertrand Russell book “The conquest of happiness.” He’s a fairly famous atheist/agnostic but this book doesn’t talk about that but rather what are his opinions on how to be happy in modern society. Personally I think his opinions are pretty good. His other books are good too, and he is a 10/10 when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Far nicer than I am so I don’t think you’ll be offended.

Another good book is “When Neitzsche Wept” which is a fictional account of Neitzsche (who suffered with depression). It’s a good easy read and is a nice intro to his philosophy, which I really like but can get a little offensive towards Christainity, but my favorite of his actual works is “Human all to Human.” If god isn’t pissed about you befriending Wiccan’s I’m sure he won’t mind you reading Neitzsche.

Voltair is thus far my favorite philosopher as he is not only extremely lucid but laugh out loud funny. “The Portable Voltair” contains most of his major works and he shows the humor life has even without an imaginary god who loves you.

You’ve spoken of reality. Reality is cold, harsh, and brutal.

Quite true I agree. I also think it incredible story to suggest that the above reality was created by an omnipotent omnibenevolent being, but I digress. Still in spite of reality being all those things you talk of, there are still good things. Friends, family, sunsets, mountain tops, and the satisfaction on can achieve in overcoming various challenges. I suggest looking on the bright side now as opposed to manufacturing a bright side only after you are dead.

This faith, which you apparently consider a delusiong of a deranged, corrupt, and illogical mind, has quite literally been the only thing which has enabled me to make it through another awful, hopeless, brutal, ugly day. Reality and logic have given me reasons to die. Faith gave me reasons to live.

I disagree. You reported having depression before converting and it seem you still suffer with it now. As such it seems that Jesus in all his loving ways failed to provide a cure. I’m not saying I know of any cure for depression, however, I think the chances are better than average that there are better alternatives that Christianity. Most atheists I know are every bit as happy as Christians, if not more so.

[badchad]

Homebrew

As he has said many times. You repeatedly call him on stuff you anticipated he would say, but not on what is actually said.

Incorrect, read again from the top and you will see clearly that I have been calling Polycarp specifically on things that he has said/typed.

The Bible is not Polycarp’s God.

I understand that. Jesus is Polycarp’s god and unfortunately all he knows about Jesus (save for the heart attack he gave him) was what is written in the bible. In other words the Jesus or the egg argument that Kalhoun mentioned above.

The Bible is a collection of stories about his God, written by men complete with errors, confabulations and misunderstandings. His God would still be his even if there were no Bible.

That’s merely your unsubstantiated assertion.

You still seem to be replying using some script that you’ve used against less thoughtful people IRL.

Wrong again homebrew. My arguments are custom tailored to Polycarp’s version of Christianity. Hence why he has such a problem giving me a straight and clear answer IMO.

It doesn’t work here with people who have actually given considerable thought to their belief systems.

It works plenty well, you may not see it but I really think Polycarp does. Also the above reminds me of one of my favorite Neitzsche quotes:

“they spend their day sitting at swamps with fishing rods, thinking themselves profound; but whoever fishes where there are not fish, I would not even call superficial.”

Although they’d use different words, I think Polycarp, Seige, Libertarian and Triskademus would all agree on one description of God: LOVE.

Whatever.

That is the basis of which they descern which parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject. If a particular passage doesn’t support LOVE, then they reject it. You keep saying this is inconsistent or illogical, but, to borrow a phrase, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Fine, so if you think their version of Christianity is so reasonable, let me ask you one question. WHY ARE YOU AN ATHEIST?

[badchad]

xenophon41:

godzillatemple, where exactly is Poly losing you in his explanations? I’ll be buggered if I can see how you can get from the posts you’ve quoted to this conclusion:

I think he has been refreshingly clear about it. I suggest you read his stuff (Barry’s) again.

Y’know, on reflection, I think I’ve made a mistake. I’ve been participating in this thread because I think it’s a good thing to let other intellectually constipated skeptics like me know that you can retain intellectual honesty without rejecting the parts of reality that can’t be explored through rationality.

What parts of reality have you explored using things other than rationality? What evidence do you have to put forth that your efforts have been fruitful?

The concept of contextual analysis is neither exceptionally difficult nor unique to theological examinations. Nor is it unique to Polycarp, nor even to modern Christian exegesis. I suspect both godzillatemple and badchad are far less obtuse regarding this sort of analysis than their posts would suggest. I suspect there’s an element of deliberateness to the technique of missing the point time after time.

Funny, I thought there was an element of deliberateness in presenting a crappy argument time after time.

Now I realize I only suspect that because I’m a cynical, untrusting prick. Yet because I’m also an argumentative bastard I keep feeding this thread anyway. But I think Tris was right back on page 1, and I regret adding fuel to this particular smoldering pit. I think I’ll just stop doing it.

Or in other words, Barry’s argument is infallible, I think I’ll just stop bashing my head against it. Would it be that much to ask that you admit as much? It won’t prevent you from later retreating to faith.

[Siege]

*Originally posted by badchad
You reported having depression before converting and it seem you still suffer with it now.

OK, now I think we’re getting down to the root of the matter. For the record, I never “converted” to Christianity. By my church’s standards, the only time during which I wasn’t a Christian was the handful of weeks before I was baptized as an infant. If you want to apply American, Fundamentalist standards, I vaguely remember accepting Christ as my Saviour at about 6 years old, although I’ve no idea how valid that was. I’ve certainly been not only attending but actively participating in the Episcopal Church since I was 11 years old if not younger. As far as I know, I was not depressed at the time.

Badchad, I was not even aware of the southern, Fundamentalist, Biblical-literalist form of Christianity you appear to advocate as the only acceptable form of Christianity until I was in college. I’ve never found it appealing; to me, it appears to reject thought and logic in favor of “God or my preacher said so”. I’ve never been “born again” in the sense of finding Jesus and, when the experience which was closest to that happened I was a Sunday School teacher. As an adult, I’ve attended two Fundamentalist-style church services run by a former Baptist minister.

I said this once on a Christian message board and wasn’t believed, but I’ll give it another try. My experience of Christianity is heavily colored by my having been born in England and by growing up in America’s northeast. I had as much experience with Fundamentalist Christianity as I did with the Church of Latter Day Saints – little or none. In many ways, it’s as foreign a faith to me as Islam. What I’ve seen of the way Fundamentalists present themselves has given me few reasons to embrace their form of Christianity and their beliefs, and it’s given me a great many reasons to reject it.

On the other hand, the Episcopal Church has fulfilled spiritual and physical needs (they’ve given me money) at times when I needed them to badly. I have had experiences which do not easily fit into a strictly logical framework, and religion supplies needs which atheism does not. By the way, on the subject of exercise, I have two points. One, it’s no more a sure cure for depression than, well, religion, or simply trying to cheer up. Two, while I don’t belong to a gym because that costs money I don’t have, as a matter of fact I do exercise by walking and fencing. The latter, among other things, provides a marvelous outlet for aggression.

If I’d grown up in America’s south or some other place where Fundamentalism is prevalent, I freely admit there’s a chance I could have wound up a Fundamentalist Christian, although given my nature and my family, there’s a far greater chance I would have wound up an Atheist.

I see you as telling me an Atheist or a strict, Biblical-literalist Christian. I can see the virtues of Atheism, actually – my father is an agnostic or soft Atheist – but Fundamentalist Christianity is completely unappealing. I may be a fool; I’ve certainly done extremely foolish things which I believed to be morally right, and reserve the right to do so again. Those may be the only models of religion which you knew; they are not the models I knew and I’m not above attempting to create a new model if the old ones don’t fit. If some call me illogical or a hypocrite for doing so, so be it.

CJ