Orthodox Christianity, False Teachers, Faith, and Reason

[Foxfyre]

Atheists often boast in a way that they are smarter, better educated, and far more logical and reasonable than we believers. Which leaves some Christians with the theory that the unbeliever's intellect often gets in the way of faith.

It is not that intellect stands in the way of faith. It is non-believers put their trust in science.

So do I put trust in science in matters of science. Because I believe the Creator of the World is also the author of science.

I think where we run into a real problem is when the non-believers try to use that same science to disprove the existence of God.

 

[pacer]

So do I put trust in science in matters of science. Because I believe the Creator of the World is also the author of science.

And God gave science the intelligence, reason, and logic to explore the world and unlock the mysteries of the Bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

So do I put trust in science in matters of science. Because I believe the Creator of the World is also the author of science.

And God gave science the intelligence, reason, and logic to explore the world.

Yes, and I believe will continue to do so unto the end of the world.

There are interesting social parallels though. The non-believer who worships science will say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

But Einstein, one of the most important contributors to science ever, was not so sure of that as his sense of observation analyzed by his superior ability to utilize logic and reason informed him that there is a kind of cosmic intelligence evident in the whole. He saw no reason to even attempt to prove that scientifically because to him it was observable and obvious.

And neither need to be wrong about that.

You have one scientist looking at scientifically developed data saying that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable, while you have another scientist, looking at the same data, saying that there is no conclusive evidence to draw that conclusion or at least to assume that it is a serious problem.

And neither need to be wrong about that.

We see the same phenomenon among devout believers in God fully committed to following Jesus with all their body, mind, and spirit. But two believers can study the same scripture passage with due attention to accurately interpret it, and they will come to different conclusions.

So is it possible that there is such depth and richness and importance in the scriptures, that different teachings from them are possible?

I go with Paul's metaphor of looking through a glass darkly on both accounts. I think we know a teensy percentage of all the science there is to know, and I think we are capable of knowing and understanding only a teensy fraction of all that God is.

 

[pacer]

So do I put trust in science in matters of science. Because I believe the Creator of the World is also the author of science.

And God gave science the intelligence, reason, and logic to explore the world.

Yes, and I believe will continue to do so unto the end of the world.

There are interesting social parallels though. The non-believer who worships science will say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

But Einstein, one of the most important contributors to science ever, was not so sure of that as his sense of observation analyzed by his superior ability to utilize logic and reason informed him that there is a kind of cosmic intelligence evident in the whole. He saw no reason to even attempt to prove that scientifically because to him it was observable and obvious.

And neither need to be wrong about that.

You have one scientist looking at scientifically developed data saying that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable, while you have another scientist, looking at the same data, saying that there is no conclusive evidence to draw that conclusion or at least to assume that it is a serious problem.

And neither need to be wrong about that.

We see the same phenomenon among devout believers in God fully committed to following Jesus with all their body, mind, and spirit. But two believers can study the same scripture passage with due attention to accurately interpret it, and they will come to different conclusions.

So is it possible that there is such depth and richness and importance in the scriptures, that different teachings from them are possible?

I go with Paul's metaphor of looking through a glass darkly on both accounts. I think we know a teensy percentage of all the science there is to know, and I think we are capable of knowing and understanding only a teensy fraction of all that God is.

Very well said, Foxfyre. Science aims to explore a different means of understanding the world.

 

[Chuckt]

But I'm still waiting Chuckt. You have accused me and will you admit now that you may have been bearing false witness or will you quote me my words that you consider heresy or hurting people?

And I'm still waiting for those questions you accuse me of not answering.

If you do not respond with the quotations and the questions, then I will know you are just spouting nonsense and are not to be taken seriously.

I don't have anything to say to you right now.

I agree. You probably don't. So you accuse me yet will not put forth the evidence. And that, my friend, is bearing false witness. What do your 12 pastors and your elders say about that?

Maybe if you respond to what I have to say before, I will have more to say to you. Until then, I'm still getting the same answers from you so I don't see the point of circular answers.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't have anything to say to you right now.

I agree. You probably don't. So you accuse me yet will not put forth the evidence. And that, my friend, is bearing false witness. What do your 12 pastors and your elders say about that?

Maybe if you respond to what I have to say before, I will have more to say to you. Until then, I'm still getting the same answers from you so I don't see the point of circular answers.

I did respond to what you said before. You accused me of teaching untruth. You accused me of hurting people. You accused me of not answering your questions. I have repeatedly asked you to state the untruths that I have said, to quote the words I have posted that hurt people, and the questions I have failed to answer.

You have refused to do so. Therefore you bear false witness against me. Again, what do your 12 pastors and your elders say about that?

 

[Foxfyre]

And God gave science the intelligence, reason, and logic to explore the world.

Yes, and I believe will continue to do so unto the end of the world.

There are interesting social parallels though. The non-believer who worships science will say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

But Einstein, one of the most important contributors to science ever, was not so sure of that as his sense of observation analyzed by his superior ability to utilize logic and reason informed him that there is a kind of cosmic intelligence evident in the whole. He saw no reason to even attempt to prove that scientifically because to him it was observable and obvious.

And neither need to be wrong about that.

You have one scientist looking at scientifically developed data saying that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable, while you have another scientist, looking at the same data, saying that there is no conclusive evidence to draw that conclusion or at least to assume that it is a serious problem.

And neither need to be wrong about that.

We see the same phenomenon among devout believers in God fully committed to following Jesus with all their body, mind, and spirit. But two believers can study the same scripture passage with due attention to accurately interpret it, and they will come to different conclusions.

So is it possible that there is such depth and richness and importance in the scriptures, that different teachings from them are possible?

I go with Paul's metaphor of looking through a glass darkly on both accounts. I think we know a teensy percentage of all the science there is to know, and I think we are capable of knowing and understanding only a teensy fraction of all that God is.

Very well said, Foxfyre. Science aims to explore a different means of understanding the world.

Yes, and sometimes I think God uses the intellect, logic, and reason of the unbeliever to teach us. I don't know whether Jules Verne was a believer, and frankly am too lazy today to research that, but I do know I consider him the father of modern science fiction. The amazing futuristic visions he wrote into his works seemed as far fetched as Grimm's Fairty Tales at the time, yet almost everything he envisioned back then is now commonplace reality now.

Likewise Einstein, not a believer in a person God or Christianity, proved, at least theoretically, that time travel and warp speeds were possible. The genius of professed Atheist, Gene Roddenberry, built on those theories to develop the fictional voyages of the Starship Enterprise along with all the possibilities of such space travel and visiting different worlds if the Lord allows this world to remain long enough. I don't believe any of it to be impossible.

At the same time, I am pretty sure we're going to have a good laugh when we get to Heaven and find out how much of this stuff we did get wrong.

But I don't think he expects us to put our intellect, logic, and reason on the back burner.

 

[pacer]

You have one scientist looking at scientifically developed data saying that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable, while you have another scientist, looking at the same data, saying that there is no conclusive evidence to draw that conclusion or at least to assume that it is a serious problem.

There is a general consensus amongst scientists when analyzing various data just as there is a general consensus amongst Christians when interpreting the Bible. No one can say they have the absolute, correct interpretation of the Bible. When I read the Bible, I hold a personal covenant with the Word. I do not believe there is a right or wrong interpretation; there is only the interpretation which stems from the heart and mind of the reader.

“Every way of man is right in his own eyes but the Lord pondereth the hearts” –Proverbs 21:2 (KJV)

 

[BreezeWood]

You have one scientist looking at scientifically developed data saying that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable, while you have another scientist, looking at the same data, saying that there is no conclusive evidence to draw that conclusion or at least to assume that it is a serious problem.

There is a general consensus amongst scientists when analyzing various data just as there is a general consensus amongst Christians when interpreting the Bible. No one can say they have the absolute, correct interpretation of the Bible. When I read the Bible, I hold a personal covenant with the Word. I do not believe there is a right or wrong interpretation; there is only the interpretation which stems from the heart and mind of the reader.

“Every way of man is right in his own eyes but the Lord pondereth the hearts” –Proverbs 21:2 (KJV)

No one can say they have the absolute, correct interpretation of the Bible.

that is certainly true, and as well some that are unverifiable ...

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

certain inaccuracies that are absolutes in the conveyance of Biblical religious interpretations should be circumspect in their teachings as the Almighty is as well of a generic origin that is not itself of a particular gathering but as the overseer of "all" that exists.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have one scientist looking at scientifically developed data saying that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable, while you have another scientist, looking at the same data, saying that there is no conclusive evidence to draw that conclusion or at least to assume that it is a serious problem.

There is a general consensus amongst scientists when analyzing various data just as there is a general consensus amongst Christians when interpreting the Bible. No one can say they have the absolute, correct interpretation of the Bible. When I read the Bible, I hold a personal covenant with the Word. I do not believe there is a right or wrong interpretation; there is only the interpretation which stems from the heart and mind of the reader.

“Every way of man is right in his own eyes but the Lord pondereth the hearts” –Proverbs 21:2 (KJV)

No one can say they have the absolute, correct interpretation of the Bible.

that is certainly true, and as well some that are unverifiable ...

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

certain inaccuracies that are absolutes in the conveyance of Biblical religious interpretations should be circumspect in their teachings as the Almighty is as well of a generic origin that is not itself of a particular gathering but as the overseer of "all" that exists.

.

Okay I think your comment here is interesting, BW, but could you simplify it a bit in more common English?

 

[Foxfyre]

Hypothesis:

The ancient Jews spent hours and hours debating and arguing the content of the Torah--it was a form of recreation to them. I believe for some sects even today, it still is.

The early Church fathers likewise had fragments of the manuscripts that would eventually be edited into our own New Testament and, because they ALL agreed that Jesus was the fulfillment of "Old Testament" prophecy, they likewise debated and argued the Old Testament content. And because Christianity appealed to the intellect and challenged people to new and exciting concepts, the Church was vital and alive and was spreading throughout its world in the near East, eastern and western Europe, and northern Africa.

But in time, human authority interjected itself into that vital living Chuch and established an orthodoxy that was not to be questioned or challenged. And the growth of the church stalled through the medieval period until the Renaissance. Once people were again introduced to the classical literature of the early Church and the great minds that influenced it, the blinders began to fall away and the Reformation became possible. Even the Roman Catholic Church was reformed and it and the new Protestantism again became alive and vital and spread into the new world and the far East.

But now we see the human dictated orthooxy returning to the church. Again certain traditions and beliefs are held up as not to be challenged or questioned. And Christianity is suffering again as a result of that despite the phenomenon of the mega church. The number of people who describe themselves as not religious or unbelievers is growing, not shrinking.

QUESTION:

Okay, will anybody comment on the hypothesis?

Does it hold water?

It's a bunch of bull?

It is spot on?

There's a kernal of truth in it?

It bothers you to read it?

What?

 

[pacer]

certain inaccuracies that are absolutes in the conveyance of Biblical religious interpretations should be circumspect in their teachings as the Almighty is as well of a generic origin that is not itself of a particular gathering but as the overseer of "all" that exists.

.

I interpret this to mean there are certain inaccuracies being put forward as absolutes in their interpretation which should be more circumspect in their teaching, with respect to the message they convey. God is universal belonging to no one religion or organization or people but oversees all of existence. Is this accurate?

 

[Foxfyre]

certain inaccuracies that are absolutes in the conveyance of Biblical religious interpretations should be circumspect in their teachings as the Almighty is as well of a generic origin that is not itself of a particular gathering but as the overseer of "all" that exists.

.

I interpret this to mean there are certain inaccuracies being put forward as absolutes in their interpretation which should be more circumspect in their teaching, with respect to the message they convey. God is universal belonging to no one religion or organization or people but oversees all of existence. Is this accurate?

ROFL. Are you guys speaking English? Okay just teasing.

But I think this might tie in with my hypothesis I posted a little while ago.

Whether it was the ancient Catholic Church that would not allow the people to read the Bible for themselves or interpret it outside of Catholic orthodoxy, or whether it is the authoritarian Protestant Church now who tells the flock what the scripture says and that is not to be questioned, do ya'll see a danger in that? Or is such a concept comforting?

 

[pacer]

Whether it was the ancient Catholic Church that would not allow the people to read the Bible for themselves or interpret it outside of Catholic orthodoxy, or whether it is the authoritarian Protestant Church now who tells the flock what the scripture says and that is not to be questioned, do ya'll see a danger in that? Or is such a concept comforting?

This is one of the reasons why so many Christians are turning away from the Church. Faith is a personal and private relationship with the Christ. One does not need to read the Bible to have faith. As per a previous thread on the subject, the church is too exclusionary – you’re either one of them or you’re not and those who question or doubt scripture are met with hostility. I do not believe in threatening people with divine punishment in an effort to convert them to Christianity.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Having had, in recent weeks, some interesting, mostly cordial but also a few contentious exchanges over matters of faith:

I have to believe that those who are convinced that others of us are false teachers, false witnesses, false prophets are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe those who are convinced that others of us are headed straight for hell are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe that those who are convinced that some of the rest of us are not 'saved' are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe the fundamentalists and Bible literalists who are convinced that other interpretations are error, heresy, and/or evil are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe the agnostics and non-religious who enjoy joining in religious discussions are sincere in their interest.

And I have to believe the Atheist, non-religionist, non-believer who come to religious threads are also speaking from conviction, at least conviction they want validated.

So. . . .

So are those who cannot put their intellect, reason, and logic aside in matters of belief, conscience, faith, and their understanding of the Scriptures all to be considered infidels? Delusional? Heretics? False prophets? False teachers? False witnesses?

Is there no room for differences of opinion? Different interpretations? Different understandings? To believe something that doesn't jive with our childhood teachings? Must we all believe exactly the same in order to be orthodox or the real deal or to love or worship the one true God?

I am of the school that faith, from whatever tradition, is blessed and used by God. And I also believe our intelligence, our ability to study and understand, to research, to embrace deeper truths, to reason and apply logical conclusions to evidence are also gifts of God that can bless us and will be used for his purposes. We do not have to put logic, common sense, and the evidence before us on the back burner in order to be children of God.

It is that last concept that I would like to discuss - cordially and without rancor please - in this thread.

In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Come let us reason together."

That's a lot of questions. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think that I have knowledge about what lay beyond death. Same as everyone, all I have is what I believe.

I think that everyone's answer to the question to the question of what lay beyond death has just as much chance of being truth - that's the definition of Great Unknown - some ideas are just easier to believe they're possible. For me the center of religious discussion is Death, Afterlife and Possibilities. Origins are a big part of most religions, but they seem to have a waning roll in the modern discussion.

With regards to God in any capacity, step one is to define 'God'.

When you talk of God, I assume you mean the God of Abraham, as described in the Torah, New Testament and Koran?


Is it important to know specifically what people mean when they say "Oh My God!"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Having had, in recent weeks, some interesting, mostly cordial but also a few contentious exchanges over matters of faith:

I have to believe that those who are convinced that others of us are false teachers, false witnesses, false prophets are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe those who are convinced that others of us are headed straight for hell are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe that those who are convinced that some of the rest of us are not 'saved' are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe the fundamentalists and Bible literalists who are convinced that other interpretations are error, heresy, and/or evil are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe the agnostics and non-religious who enjoy joining in religious discussions are sincere in their interest.

And I have to believe the Atheist, non-religionist, non-believer who come to religious threads are also speaking from conviction, at least conviction they want validated.

So. . . .

So are those who cannot put their intellect, reason, and logic aside in matters of belief, conscience, faith, and their understanding of the Scriptures all to be considered infidels? Delusional? Heretics? False prophets? False teachers? False witnesses?

Is there no room for differences of opinion? Different interpretations? Different understandings? To believe something that doesn't jive with our childhood teachings? Must we all believe exactly the same in order to be orthodox or the real deal or to love or worship the one true God?

I am of the school that faith, from whatever tradition, is blessed and used by God. And I also believe our intelligence, our ability to study and understand, to research, to embrace deeper truths, to reason and apply logical conclusions to evidence are also gifts of God that can bless us and will be used for his purposes. We do not have to put logic, common sense, and the evidence before us on the back burner in order to be children of God.

It is that last concept that I would like to discuss - cordially and without rancor please - in this thread.

In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Come let us reason together."

That's a lot of questions. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think that I have knowledge about what lay beyond death. Same as everyone, all I have is what I believe.

I think that everyone's answer to the question to the question of what lay beyond death has just as much chance of being truth - that's the definition of Great Unknown - some ideas are just easier to believe they're possible. For me the center of religious discussion is Death, Afterlife and Possibilities. Origins are a big part of most religions, but they seem to have a waning roll in the modern discussion.

With regards to God in any capacity, step one is to define 'God'.

When you talk of God, I assume you mean the God of Abraham, as described in the Torah, New Testament and Koran?


Is it important to know specifically what people mean when they say "Oh My God!"?

Well I don't think I brought up death except that I keep a list of questions I have no answers for. When I die, the only thing i want to take with me is my list and get them answered.

But when I mention God, I am speaking of the One I know to be real, and which humankind has been trying to describe and define for all of human history. I am speaking of the One I have personally experienced. But I know my experiences with the living God have at times taken a different path than have experiences others have had.

The whole point of my OP and what I have been trying to generate a discussion about, do we all have to believe the exact same things about that God? Interpret the scriptures that inform us about Him in exactly the same way? All believe exactly the same thing about everything religious in order to be acceptable?

 

[AVG-JOE]

certain inaccuracies that are absolutes in the conveyance of Biblical religious interpretations should be circumspect in their teachings as the Almighty is as well of a generic origin that is not itself of a particular gathering but as the overseer of "all" that exists.

.

I interpret this to mean there are certain inaccuracies being put forward as absolutes in their interpretation which should be more circumspect in their teaching, with respect to the message they convey. God is universal belonging to no one religion or organization or people but oversees all of existence. Is this accurate?

Depends on who you ask. A lot of folks don't have the back-bone to define God because it's then that the conversation can get dicey. Others are truly ambivalent and believe that God is o.k. with all the different types of worship. Most of the Ancient Stories however, claim that there's only two choices, the right way and pathways to hell.

 

[Foxfyre]

certain inaccuracies that are absolutes in the conveyance of Biblical religious interpretations should be circumspect in their teachings as the Almighty is as well of a generic origin that is not itself of a particular gathering but as the overseer of "all" that exists.

.

I interpret this to mean there are certain inaccuracies being put forward as absolutes in their interpretation which should be more circumspect in their teaching, with respect to the message they convey. God is universal belonging to no one religion or organization or people but oversees all of existence. Is this accurate?

Depends on who you ask. A lot of folks don't have the back-bone to define God because it's then that the conversation can get dicey. Others are truly ambivalent and believe that God is o.k. with all the different types of worship. Most of the Ancient Stories however, claim that there's only two choices, the right way and pathways to hell.

You think? On that right way vs pathway to hell thing? I haven't come to that same conclusion as I think there are so many twists and turns in the human condition and in the human heart that it is impossible to confine them all to one single concept. But it does seem that God has called some very unlikely characters to take the leading roles in a lot of those stories.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Having had, in recent weeks, some interesting, mostly cordial but also a few contentious exchanges over matters of faith:

I have to believe that those who are convinced that others of us are false teachers, false witnesses, false prophets are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe those who are convinced that others of us are headed straight for hell are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe that those who are convinced that some of the rest of us are not 'saved' are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe the fundamentalists and Bible literalists who are convinced that other interpretations are error, heresy, and/or evil are speaking from sincere conviction.

I have to believe the agnostics and non-religious who enjoy joining in religious discussions are sincere in their interest.

And I have to believe the Atheist, non-religionist, non-believer who come to religious threads are also speaking from conviction, at least conviction they want validated.

So. . . .

So are those who cannot put their intellect, reason, and logic aside in matters of belief, conscience, faith, and their understanding of the Scriptures all to be considered infidels? Delusional? Heretics? False prophets? False teachers? False witnesses?

Is there no room for differences of opinion? Different interpretations? Different understandings? To believe something that doesn't jive with our childhood teachings? Must we all believe exactly the same in order to be orthodox or the real deal or to love or worship the one true God?

I am of the school that faith, from whatever tradition, is blessed and used by God. And I also believe our intelligence, our ability to study and understand, to research, to embrace deeper truths, to reason and apply logical conclusions to evidence are also gifts of God that can bless us and will be used for his purposes. We do not have to put logic, common sense, and the evidence before us on the back burner in order to be children of God.

It is that last concept that I would like to discuss - cordially and without rancor please - in this thread.

In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Come let us reason together."

That's a lot of questions. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think that I have knowledge about what lay beyond death. Same as everyone, all I have is what I believe.

I think that everyone's answer to the question to the question of what lay beyond death has just as much chance of being truth - that's the definition of Great Unknown - some ideas are just easier to believe they're possible. For me the center of religious discussion is Death, Afterlife and Possibilities. Origins are a big part of most religions, but they seem to have a waning roll in the modern discussion.

With regards to God in any capacity, step one is to define 'God'.

When you talk of God, I assume you mean the God of Abraham, as described in the Torah, New Testament and Koran?


Is it important to know specifically what people mean when they say "Oh My God!"?

Well I don't think I brought up death except that I keep a list of questions I have no answers for. When I die, the only thing i want to take with me is my list and get them answered.

But when I mention God, I am speaking of the One I know to be real, and which humankind has been trying to describe and define for all of human history. I am speaking of the One I have personally experienced. But I know my experiences with the living God have at times taken a different path than have experiences others have had.

The whole point of my OP and what I have been trying to generate a discussion about, do we all have to believe the exact same things about that God? Interpret the scriptures that inform us about Him in exactly the same way? All believe exactly the same thing about everything religious in order to be acceptable?

There are worshipers of The God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, New Testament and Koran, who're ready to kill others en mass, even though they worship the same God, because they feel that the others are worshiping God incorrectly. Given the opportunity, some would kill me because of my perceived blasphemy of not worshiping that particular God.

I think that defining God is extremely important, even when the definition is deliberately established as loosely as possible. As long as everyone is on the same page when someone speaks of 'God'.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a lot of questions. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think that I have knowledge about what lay beyond death. Same as everyone, all I have is what I believe.

I think that everyone's answer to the question to the question of what lay beyond death has just as much chance of being truth - that's the definition of Great Unknown - some ideas are just easier to believe they're possible. For me the center of religious discussion is Death, Afterlife and Possibilities. Origins are a big part of most religions, but they seem to have a waning roll in the modern discussion.

With regards to God in any capacity, step one is to define 'God'.

When you talk of God, I assume you mean the God of Abraham, as described in the Torah, New Testament and Koran?


Is it important to know specifically what people mean when they say "Oh My God!"?

Well I don't think I brought up death except that I keep a list of questions I have no answers for. When I die, the only thing i want to take with me is my list and get them answered.

But when I mention God, I am speaking of the One I know to be real, and which humankind has been trying to describe and define for all of human history. I am speaking of the One I have personally experienced. But I know my experiences with the living God have at times taken a different path than have experiences others have had.

The whole point of my OP and what I have been trying to generate a discussion about, do we all have to believe the exact same things about that God? Interpret the scriptures that inform us about Him in exactly the same way? All believe exactly the same thing about everything religious in order to be acceptable?

There are worshipers of The God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, New Testament and Koran, who're ready to kill others en mass, even though they worship the same God, because they feel that the others are worshiping God incorrectly. Given the opportunity, some would kill me because of my perceived blasphemy of not worshiping that particular God.

I think that defining God is extremely important, even when the definition is deliberately established as loosely as possible. As long as everyone is on the same page when someone speaks of 'God'.

And I respect that, but I can't participate in a 'definition of God' since I don't think we mere mortals are given anywhere near the intellect, reason, logic, knowledge, training, or insight to come even close to doing that.