If a person does not hate his brother, he cannot be a disciple of Jesus.
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:26
If a person does hate his brother, he cannot love God.
If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
1 John 4:20
If you do not completely abandon your family, you are unworthy to serve God.
Jesus said to another man, “Follow me.”
But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 9:59-62
Tags: God, Bible, Love, Jesus, Conflicting, Scripture, Flawed, Verse, Error, Invalid, Brother
June 4, 2009 at 1:26 am |
You just didn’t use the holy ghost when you read the bible, and Satan has tricked you! Everyone knows you can’t understand the bible until you are already a Christian!
June 4, 2009 at 3:23 am |
LOL Sisyphus I guess many christians believe this and yet I have never gotten an answer as to how a newborn can ever become a christian.
June 4, 2009 at 11:13 am |
I agree. I think newborns are probably more agnostic than anything else… seeing as they can’t talk, think abstractly, prove, disprove, reason, question, etc.
Still, 1 Corinthians 7:14.
June 4, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
Babies are atheists. Atheism is a lack of god belief.
June 5, 2009 at 8:44 pm
babies are not atheist, they are who they are, don’t slap a label on them for your own comforts.
Humans only feel the need to put label on them because of their belief of order. Even being that this version of order is distorted. It pales in comparison to Absolute order.
A baby is not even a baby, it is. As well as you and I, but you were told and programmed to believe your a body and that you were born.
There is something there that goes beyond the birth of a body, something that sustains that bodies life, that is what the baby is yet you cannot conceptualize it, because to conceptualize is to restrict its unconditionally eternal capacity.
June 6, 2009 at 2:23 am
liberatedself do you happen to comment on other blogs as John C? Sorry he says stuff like this and does it hoping to confuse what has been said but fails as you have. Everything has labels even when you claim to not be labeling them. Don’t waste time trying to sound all mysterious try doing what can help mankind the most.
June 6, 2009 at 2:51 pm
What would i gain or lose by trying to confuse someone. What has been said, is not really that confusing if you really earnestly think about it for yourself, your ideas and programming are being attacked therefore you feel defensive, and thus why you “feel” that you must protect them at all costs.
Everything does not have a label, can you properly explain to me what it feels like to watch a sunset for the first time, into a way in which is perfect truth without distorting the facts to me? You cannot without distorting the truth. This is one simple case that just cannot have a label put onto it. What about where you were 5 days before you were born. Something was there however that body was not aware of itself, but something maintained its life made sure nutrition sufficiently got to its body. Even when that body was a baby, can you honestly say you can remember being born outside of what your parents have told you? You simply cannot explain the process.
A tree does not state that it is a tree, it just simply is what it is. It is the intellect that states its a tree or the sky is the sky out of convenience for a false sense of “order.” So you can think what you want, i don’t mind. I’m not offended actually i enjoy the conversation so thank you ^_^
June 4, 2009 at 3:47 am |
It seems to me (as an atheist, by the way) that these teaching aren’t as contradictory as they first appear. Luke seems to be speaking comparatively – you have to love God/Jesus so much that in comparison you hate your family. John, on the other hand, is speaking in absolutes – love thy brother. Love Jesus more, but do make sure you love your brother too.
June 4, 2009 at 11:14 am |
Cool.
June 4, 2009 at 3:51 am |
Luke 14:26 is a figurative use of the word, “hate” meant to demonstrate a relative standing before God. ie. Compared to the love for your family, you hate Mailmen.
1 Jn 4:20 “brother” actually means fellow Christian. This whole section is dedicated to promoting unity within the body of Christ. Look earlier in the chapter and you’ll see how much John talks about loving each other (fellow Christians).
This is how language works. “I love chocolate”. “I love my job”. “I love my wife so much I would die for her”. Am I contradictory?
June 4, 2009 at 7:24 am |
I’ve heard the attempt to rationalize the language of Luke 14:26, but it is reinforced in Luke 9:59. I’ve added it to the post.
Jesus tells his follower if he goes and buries his father, he is unfit to serve God. He tells another follower if he does not completely abandon his family he is also unfit to serve God.
Jesus is actually teaching that we should abandon our family and follow him. It is impossible to love your family if you abandon them to follow an invisible god.
June 4, 2009 at 8:41 am |
That extra passage from Luke 9:59 really drives the point home. I don’t think you can loosely interpret that in any other way than “My way or the highway, buster!”
June 4, 2009 at 8:44 am |
Unyielding servitude is a constant theme in Jesus’ message. Give everything you own, leave everyone you know, and so on and so forth.
It doesn’t seem to be metaphorical if you believe that the people he was talking to were actual historical figures. After all, if it wasn’t figurative for them, why should it be for us? Isn’t that a double standard?
June 4, 2009 at 8:46 am |
“I love my wife so much that I hate chocolate” – no, that is not how language works.
June 4, 2009 at 8:52 am |
It is when your wife tells you that you have to choose between her and the chocolate.
June 4, 2009 at 12:22 pm
How often does that happen? Anyway, in the trivial case of chocolate, you would not have to hate it, just abstain from it in her presence.
Even if your wife were telling you to choose between her and another woman, the word “hate” is unreasonably strong.
June 4, 2009 at 8:58 pm |
Hi theBEattitude,
I’m not sure that any of your arguments here hold up. After all, it was you yourself who said that “The Bible is open to interpretation. Everyone interprets it in the way that suits them best or serves their purposes.” You said this in your post about Losing My Religion.
Now if this point you make is true and you are part of the group called “everyone” then I guess you also interpret the Bible in the way that suites you best or serves your purposes. Perhaps you should reconsider some of your statements. Not everything that differs from your unfairly biased interpretation (by your own admission) is a mere rationalization.
June 4, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
I no longer attempt to interpret the Bible. I view it as fiction. I merely post these as thoughts for discussion.
June 4, 2009 at 12:21 pm |
The Bible was written in a different culture, right? Let’s understand Luke 9:59-62 in light of the culture at that time:
“And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.”
– Luke 9:59, 60
Because the east is in such a warm climate, there is not much time between death and burial. The funeral would happen the same day or on the day following the death. Because of this short interval between death and burying the person, family usually stuck close to home — if they had left, they wouldn’t get back in time for the funeral.
It’s likely the father was not “dead” (yet) but was ill or sick and the man didn’t want to leave in case the father did die. (If the father was dead, the man wouldn’t have been hanging around.) Jesus is making the point that His ministry on Earth is almost up (Luke 9:51) and there isn’t time to wait!
“Another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.”
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
– Luke 9:60, 61
What’s Jesus talking about? In the East, the plow went *after* the sower (unlike we think of today) and buried the seeds. A plower would be concentrating ahead of him or her and not behind, so as to steer the cow (that’s right) over the seeds to cover them correctly. How good of a job would a plower be doing if they were looking backwards, trying to do two things at once?
June 4, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
I think Byran’s “my way or the highway” is more accurate.
Jesus is saying your family and loved ones are nothing more than a distraction. So neglect your family in order to be more devoted to God. The apostle Paul was also a big advocate of this theology. He recommended everyone to be unmarried loners so they wouldn’t be distracted from their Christian mission.
June 4, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
I disagree. Since the Bible is an Eastern book (not a “Western” book), it’s always a good idea to read verses and scripture in light of their Eastern cultures and mannerisms (and, conversely, not read Western thought into them) among other “keys” to understanding God’s Word.
Without understanding the proper usage of verses in light of the “Easternisms”, we run the risk of missing 2 Peter 1:20.
June 8, 2009 at 11:02 am |
Why don’t you try another version of the Bible instead of NIV to save yourself the trouble of trying to understand ‘fiction’? Just as how you take out your dictionary when you don’t understand the meaning of a word?
June 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
The quotes from Luke appear to refer to a candidate for the position of disciple. The first one does, anyway. The use of the word “hate” (“—yes, even his own life—”) could be a blunt, harsh way to emphasize the rigors and requirements of the job: commitment to attend to Jesus’s work regardless of personal or family needs, constant travel, danger from people hostile to Jesus, etc. There might well have been a lot of people who wanted to be a disciple without thinking through just what that would mean for their economic and social life and their personal safety.
If so, these quotes would not necessarily apply to an ordinary person choosing to adopt Jesus’s teachings. But they might be used in connection with a pastor’s duty to the congregation as a whole wherever it might come into conflict with his personal or his family’s interests.
If all this speculation is correct, the quoted statements from Luke are incredibly clumsy and inarticulate. Even 2000 years ago a god ought to have been able to express these ideas more clearly. But at least this would resolve the apparent conflict with the other statements.
June 4, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
Jesus is simply saying that it takes committment to follow him.
June 4, 2009 at 10:02 pm |
Your afterlife is in jeopardy and you want to interpret GOD’S work so precariously?!
June 8, 2009 at 11:02 am |
Why don’t you try another version of the Bible instead of NIV to save yourself the trouble of trying to understand ‘fiction’? Just as how you take out your dictionary when you don’t understand the meaning of a word?
June 4, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
To some degree the texts can be explained, but why bother. Lets get straight to the real issue. The bible is a collection of books written by mostly anonymous writers, who have their own points of view and therefore there are real conflicts in the bible. That is truth, and that is fine. As along as you understand what the bible is, this causes no difficulty.
Luke was written about 70-80CE. Along with Mark and Matthew, all three thought that Jesus would return within their lifetimes or their readers lifetimes. They thought time was short. Their remarks are largely admonitiions to make no delay whatsoever in preparing for if they had not sufficiently repented and begun living a good life, they would find themselves left out of the coming kingdom on earth.
John doesn’t write unter 90-100CE. It is now becoming obvious that Jesus is not returning “soon” or at any moment. John’s theology is very different than the synoptics. He has no thoughts of any kingdom on earth, but considers the kingdom in heaven.
He then focuses on the longterm committment. John knows that Jesus’ message was one of love and forgiveness. He counsels the believer to forgive if he is to be a good Christian.
They are both talking about two very different things actually. One is encouraging getting on with the business of repentance,and the other is trying to convince his followers to live out the teachings of Christ.
June 4, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
Your remarks about Paul are also inaccurate. He too expected Jesus to return quickly. He counseled that those who were single should remain so if they could remain celibate. Otherwise they should marry. He thought the celibate life best, but he understood it to be a gift that all were not given. Those that could, should, those who could not should not. But in any case, the thought Jesus would return within his lifetime.
You need to understand the timelines. Paul wrote in the early and mid 50′s CE. That was the prevelant theology of himself, Mark, Matthew and Luke. Things started to change with John, as that hope began to die.
AGain, don’t expect you can reconcile all the various writers of the bible. You cannot. They wrote at different times, to different audiences, and had very different theologies based to some degree on what had happened up to the point they wrote.
June 4, 2009 at 2:23 pm |
Good response, Sherry. I like that you said “writers” and not “authors”: One author, many writers (ala 2 Timothy 3:16).
June 4, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
He too expected Jesus to return quickly.
That would explain Biblical contradictions, but not in a way that is compatible with Christianity being true.
June 5, 2009 at 10:32 am |
That would depend on what you define as “Christianity being true.” If you mean, as opposed to other faith traditions? I would agree. If you mean, it means there is no good if true, then I disagree. All religions are attempts by humans to define and understand the unknowable but what feels very real, God. To say that those who wrote about Jesus didn’t understand him correctly doesn’t reduce Christianity to nothingness, it merely means we adjust ourselves accordingly. For those looking for a manual for salvation, such as fundamentalists do, it does I agree destroy that concept.
June 8, 2009 at 11:03 am |
I’ve never seen propaganda surviving 2000 years. Even Hitler and Stalin’s gone and left for the future to be studied as a subject that’s optional.
And yet, the Bible is still being studied all over the world. What does this tell you about ‘propaganda’?
June 8, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Have you heard of Neo-nazis? There are still people around that think Stalin had it right it is just they lost power. If they can they will get back into power. If you look at the percentage of people who are chrisitain compared to 100 years ago you find that christianity is rapidly losing people to other religions and no religion.
What it tells me about propaganda is that as long as you hold the power you can make anyone believe anything. Without voilence and control of the government chrisitianity and islam both lose ground. Now that more Americans are able to actually study the bible and get opinions from others they are seeing it more and more for what it is.
June 4, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
“Again, don’t expect you can reconcile all the various writers of the bible. You cannot. They wrote at different times, to different audiences, and had very different theologies based to some degree on what had happened up to the point they wrote.”
The church I grew up in preached that one COULD/CAN reconcile the writers of the Bible, as all were divinely inspired by God, and there is NO error in The Bible. When issues like the one raised in this post arise, the leaders in the church always find a way to ‘interpret’ and ‘add things’ that are not written to explain away doubt/issues.
Looking at the writings now… it is evident the writers did have different ‘theologies’… but I like to call it what it really is… propaganda.
June 4, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
I prefer the words of Vito Corleone: ‘A man who does not spend time with his family is not a man!’
June 4, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
Sherry and Rich’s points are interesting. The words “in context” are a favorite among Christians to explain away things that we today (in our Western thought process) find uneasy. I think many atheists don’t mind that point of view, but that will probably still not convince them. However, wouldn’t verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
and
Hebrews 13:8 (New King James Version)
” Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
make an argument against reading the Bible in context? If God was speaking to an Eastern world, then his words do not apply to our western world today.
Also, to the person who mentioned 2 Peter 1:20-21 (New International Version)
“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
I submit to you the verse Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version)
” ‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?”
The Bible makes the point that even itself can be flawed. In my opinion that means Christian apologetics base their logical arguments on evidence that by its own admission is untrue.
June 5, 2009 at 10:43 am |
You’re arguing in circles when you use parts of the bible to define what “in context” means. Either the theologies of Mark, Matthew, and Luke on the one hand and John on the other are in conflict or their aren’t. If they are, then the bible is a collection of writings by mostly anonymous people who are trying to convince others of what they believe, based on the oral and written material available to them at the time.
Your verse from Timothy is inaccurate and against must be taken in context. The actual text is: All scripture that is inspired is profitable…..” This means that not all scripture is necessarily inspired, but that which is, is profitable. The context is, that while Timothy is written some time after Paul’s death, and probably closer to 100 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, only the OT would have been “scripture” at that time. The NT was still over 200 years in the future to be determined.
To say that Jesus is the same today…..etc. is to say nothing about the bible. He never wrote a word of it. We only have his interpreters, and whether you believe it or not, the general opinion for over 100 years is that not a single one was a person who had actually seen and heard Jesus. They are relying almost completely on 2,3, or 4th hand heresay and oral traditions. We have reason to believe that some things are accurately set down as to his sayings and life, since we have multiple attestation.
The bible, IMO is a history of man’s trying to figure out God. Some are accorded more reliablility than others. Some were simply smarter. Some were “tuned into” God to a greater degree. It is after all faith, not fact we proclaim. It’s meant to be such. It is a journey we each take, knowingly, willingly, or not. we still take it. The joy is in melding into the divine while still in the flesh. It is what God desires for his creation, or so it seems to me. In the end we all return to God, like it or not. At least that is what I believe.
June 5, 2009 at 12:02 pm |
Sherry,
“then the bible is a collection of writings by mostly anonymous people who are trying to convince others of what they believe, based on the oral and written material available to them at the time.”
I agree! And I am sure many atheists would agree as well. Your opinion argues against innerancy and fundamentalism, which is (inmo) the branch of Christianity atheists have the most problem with. But scripture also says, John 1:1 1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Regarding II Timothy 3:16, which translation are you quoting? I quoted from the king james. Here are other translations…
“Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration)…Amplified
“All Scripture is God-breathed…” NIV
“All Scripture is inspired by God…” NASB
“Every part of Scripture is God-breathed …” The Message Bible
I do not see your interpretation. Either all scripture is inspired by God, including the ones we today overlook (and find appalling I might add) or it isn’t. BY your standards how is one to interpret which authors are actually hearing from God?
“it is after all faith, not fact we proclaim. ” You may be such a Christian, but many are not. “At least that is what I believe.” That is an honest statement, and I am sure one that any atheist would respect. The problem is when one forces their belief on another and presents it as truth that must believed, then condemns them to eternal torment if they don’t. (Or you know, kill doctors, blow up buildings, etc)
June 5, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
I do respect your statements. The Bible is either the Word of God, or it isn’t. It isn’t an “á la carte” belief system. Jesus is repeatedly quoted teaching Old Testament scripture as divine truth. Who gets to be the authority of what is and isn’t inspired by God in the Bible?
Many like to accuse me of being a Bible literalist. But I do know the difference between metaphorical parables and stories that were written as fact. The Bible has both. Unfortunately some of the most ridiculous and ugly stories of the book were written as fact. Which is exactly why I view the stories of Yahweh and Jesus as nothing more than fictional folklore.
If the Bible is nothing more than the ramblings of primitive men, why give it any credibility for faith in something you can’t see?
June 8, 2009 at 11:05 am |
Why do you believe in the wind’s existence, then? Since you can’t see wind.
Why do you believe the astrologists when they tell you that Pluto exists, when they tell you that the Milky Way and the Galaxy exists? You’ve ever seen one? You’re an astronaut?
June 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
First of all, it’s astronomers. Astrologers are like you. I’ve seen evidence of galaxies. I can blow on my hand to prove the existence of wind.
June 5, 2009 at 9:00 pm |
The way that I see it (which like you said comes from somewhat of an individual interpretation) is that in Jesus words about hating mother, father, friends, brothers, etc. has more to do with the label that humanity have given this. This in which I agree that these labels only serve as a distraction. When you veil yourself in concept you create a barrier that does not allow you to Love Unconditionally. By exterminating your perception of what it means to be mother, father, friend, etc. You are receptive to the True Nature of humanity.
When it refers in the other verse to love your brotherin, it does not refer to only Christians, because this again would be restricting the body from Unconditionally Loving one another. That we are all connected through that one Absolute. There is NO exception to this rule.
Honestly, think about it, does a tree withhold its shade from a sinner to a holy man. Does the flower withhold its scent from the sinner? Just because you’re christian, you aren’t owed special privileges. We all come from the absolute and are within that Absolute, the difference in the Christian from the layman is that they seek to realize it through a religious belief. If you believe you are greater than any other man because of a fancy belief then you are a fool, you are no better than the layman, in which Jesus even teaches this humility. You have put a veil around your own eyes, righteous selfishness is still selfishness.
We all carry that ineffable part of being within each body, whether you realize it or not is whether you choose the ego over the Absolute. Which btw, the ego is a fictional thing which serves as an obstacle.
Your True Nature, is so much more beautiful, and you are not what you perceive yourself to be, Wake Up!
(This is a general comment, not particularly directed at you BEattitude. =])
June 5, 2009 at 10:05 pm |
It is only through the word, the book, that we know about god. He came here in person to teach us. There can be nothing more important than his message, he died a horrible death to get his message to us. This message was so important that he lived here more than thirty years, and yet never wrote a word. How can a message so important be left to interpretation by mere humans? He is all powerful, and yet we are asked to believe he chose to reach us by publishing a book that he wouldn’t take the time to write. No god would leave is message in the hands of deceitful humans. No god would use such distrustful intermediaries. I, for one, await direct communication.
June 6, 2009 at 3:11 am |
because Truth cannot be written down, it can only be directly experiences. The ability to try and capture the Truth within words already distorts the meaning.
The truth lies within that moment that cannot be described whether its in the experiencing of the vastness of the universe, watching a sunset for the first time, or seeing the seven wonders. That moment in which the mind cannot comprehend what it is.
This is in the bible but its not in the respect of the physical words themselves, it goes much deeper than this. Words are the catalyzers of this Truth, so they serve as being very important, but they are but a fraction of what Truth actually is. =]
June 6, 2009 at 4:06 am |
LOL do you read what you write? By writing that the truth can’t be written then you are saying that that isn’t the truth. Your claims are just a form of self delusion to avoid having to answer questions you have about truth, i think.
The simple things tend to be the most truthful. Only people hiding from the truth will try to make the truth hard to find. I see you trying to hide the truth even from yourself with words. You want to believe that truth can never be known and all life is just an illusion of the truth.
June 6, 2009 at 2:42 pm
oh absolutely, i’m saying that even what i’ve written is a fraction of a truth based on this individual point of view. It doesn’t mean the Truth does not exist, but its not me to say that I know the truth and you do not.
Simply put, The Truth is experienced, not “gained” through second hand experience, you are misguided into believing that I’m illuding myself, I know what the Truth is but to describe it to you would be to distort it. You must earnestly seek it and come to that ultimately realization on your own. I can put it into words but it will not be Absolute Truth nor will it be exactly how its described on paper.
They are merely pointers. Why do you think humans still suffer even with people like Jesus and Buddha passing on the Earths surface?
June 6, 2009 at 11:38 am |
Why don’t you do some research first before you post something like this? A year ago I came across the same question as you did but I realised that that shouldn’t be right because its contradicting God’s nature. Try this:
Luke 14:26 (NCV)
“If anyone comes to me but loves his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters—or even life—more than me, he cannot be my follower.
1John 4:20 (NCV)
If people say, “I love God,” but hate their brothers or sisters, they are liars. Those who do not love their brothers and sisters, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have never seen.
Luke9:59-62 in essence is related to Luke14:26. What God meant was if you can’t love me more than you love you family, yourself and other things, you ain’t fit to follow me.
There is a reason why you should keep different versions of the Bible for reference. And there is also a reason why you should ALWAYS prayer about what you read and go back to the very basic if you need to, the direct translation of the Bible from its original language. That’s what I’ve learnt to do.
Some of these verses are deceptive, esp. NIV cause its meant to be translated and condensed into a small book so that you can bring it around.
June 13, 2009 at 10:20 am |
Why would God allow incorrect translations to exist? Is it his goal to confuse people?
This only further demonstrates the very fallible man-made words that fill the Bible.
June 13, 2009 at 9:28 am |
By the way the seeming inconsistent scriptures are quoted, it is undeniable that you started with unbelief, and then uses bible verses to prove his unbelief. The altruism is true- “no amount of convincing is enough for a person who does not want to believe”.
You are proud of the fact that you use reason to see the inconsistency of the bible and yet the way you interpret the verses you have quoted is unreasonable.
June 13, 2009 at 10:16 am |
It is actually quite the opposite. I was a devoted follower of Jesus for the first 33 years of my life. I started with belief and verses like these proved to me the Bible is nothing more than man-made theology.
This altruism is also true- “no amount of archaic and irrational teaching is enough convince a honestly rational person that does want to believe.”
June 13, 2009 at 7:01 pm |
Once Jesus said to a man “just believe” the man answered “Lord I believe, but help my unbelief”.
Despite all you’ve said, you have not yet provided sufficient evidence that God does not exists. All you did was set up arguments to justify your unbelief (and your reasoning is obviously tainted with bias, not at all rational).
Everyone who sets forth a proposition “God does not exist or there is no God” has the corresponding obligation to provide evidence to support that proposition. If he fails to do this, he does not deserve to set up such a proposition at all.
Why don’t you use scientific proof to prove your point?