How would that change his messageIt wouldn't, in my opinion. From Mark 10 v 45:
...and his followers perception of him?Again, I don't think it would. His followers would see the miracles and miraculous signs as evidence of who He was and that what He was saying was true.
I don't think it would. His followers would see the miracles and miraculous signs as evidence of who He was and that what He was saying was true.
It wouldn't, in my opinion. From Mark 10 v 45:
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”Again, I don't think it would. His followers would see the miracles and miraculous signs as evidence of who He was and that what He was saying was true.
I wonder how he would react to a certain person who has interpreted what he is supposed to have said in such a 'unique' way? I suspect he would be pretty scathing about it, to say the least.But would He need to be pretty scathing about it if the person has interpreted what He said correctly?
Well I've seen Criss Angel walk on water so I think his miraculous signs would have to be rethought.Hence why Jesus did many miracles. As statistics would say, a sample size of 1 is not big enough.
Hence why Jesus did many miracles. As statistics would say, a sample size of 1 is not big enough.
Incidentally, I would put what Criss Angel does in the illusion category. Explanation(s) are available on Youtube(*1)
(*1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3P4Gzow-t0
Hence why Jesus did many miracles. As statistics would say, a sample size of 1 is not big enough.
Incidentally, I would put what Criss Angel does in the illusion category. Explanation(s) are available on Youtube(*1)
(*1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3P4Gzow-t0
Incidentally, I would put what Criss Angel does in the illusion category.
Maybe Jesus was a talented magician.Maybe you should try putting your brain in gear before engaging your mouth. Everyone, whatever their religion or lack thereof, agrees that Jesus was a good, patently honest and sincere person, but you want us to believe that he was a con-man.
Maybe you should try putting your brain in gear before engaging your mouth. Everyone, whatever their religion or lack thereof, agrees that Jesus was a good, patently honest and sincere person, but you want us to believe that he was a con-man.
Well, obviously not to you, but they are to millions, so where does that get us? You really don't understand the difference between subjective and objective, do you?
Illusionists can be pretty convincing. The so called 'miracles' attributed to Jesus aren't credible at all.
Illusionists can be pretty convincing. The so called 'miracles' attributed to Jesus aren't credible at all.
Hence why Jesus did many miracles. As statistics would say, a sample size of 1 is not big enough.Yes so would I. But the real question is why is it a magic trick when Criss Angel does it but a miracle when Jesus does it?
Incidentally, I would put what Criss Angel does in the illusion category. Explanation(s) are available on Youtube(*1)
(*1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3P4Gzow-t0
Hence why Jesus did many miracles. As statistics would say, a sample size of 1 is not big enough.So much begging the question.
Incidentally, I would put what Criss Angel does in the illusion category. Explanation(s) are available on Youtube(*1)
(*1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3P4Gzow-t0
Hence why Jesus did many miracles. As statistics would say, a sample size of 1 is not big enough.
Incidentally, I would put what Criss Angel does in the illusion category. Explanation(s) are available on Youtube(*1)
(*1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3P4Gzow-t0
[/quote
Yes of course he did Sword, don't let it worry you, you'll be allright.
Regards ippy
Maybe you should try putting your brain in gear before engaging your mouth. Everyone, whatever their religion or lack thereof, agrees that Jesus was a good, patently honest and sincere personNo, actually, everyone doesn't agree anything of the kind. Most famously Bertrand Russell in Why I am Not a Christian, Richard Robinson in An Atheist's Values, George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God and a myriad of other sources I could provide on request - all deeply and sometimes sharply critical of the character of Jesus as presented in the NT. Your idea of some sort of unanimity of his goodness is a sheer fantasy.
No, actually, everyone doesn't agree anything of the kind. Most famously Bertrand Russell in Why I am Not a Christian, Richard Robinson in An Atheist's Values, George H. Smith in Atheusm: The Case Against God and a myriad of other sources I could provide on request - all deeply and sometimes sharply critical of the character of Jesus as presented in the NT. Your idea of some sort of unanimity of his goodness is a sheer fantasy.If I recall correctly, Russell opined that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus, but that's a matter of degree. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. I haven't read the other books.
Maybe you should try putting your brain in gear before engaging your mouth. Everyone, whatever their religion or lack thereof, agrees that Jesus was a good, patently honest and sincere person, but you want us to believe that he was a con-man.
You obviously haven't ever read the Bible. He trashed a Temple... with a home-made whip, according to the story ...*
If I recall correctly, Russell opined that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus, but that's a matter of degree. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. I haven't read the other books.
If you look at all my published books you'll find that I didn't say Hitler wasn't admirable, but that doesn't mean I think he was.Now you're just being silly.
Now you're just being silly.
LR - he did not trash the temple. He overturned some tables in the outer court, and drove out some animals. As for people who are up themselves, a few other names occur to me.
It was vandalism. Killing a load of pigs wasn't a clever thing to do.
As for people who are up themselves, a few other names occur to me.
Thinking of yourself, dear? ;D
It was vandalism. Killing a load of pigs wasn't a clever thing to do.
As for people who are up themselves, a few other names occur to me.
Thinking of yourself, dear? ;D
Pigs have been used therapeutically and for food. Their pancreas especially harvesTed for insulin.
Do you consider healing children with diabetes vandalism?
The pigs are metaphorical swine. We've been here before.
Now you're just being silly.No I'm not. It's a light hearted post that demonstrates the fallacy of your own argument.
Who says they are metaphorical?
Contemporary biblical scholarship. It's an in-joke against the occupying Romans.
You do know that pigs weren't kept in the number in a country where eating pigs is unclean, right?
If you say so. ;D
If memory serves, the biblical account says the Jesus exorcised a man who was possessed by many demons, who frequently threw him to the ground, as indeed they did when he met Jesus. the demons, having been banished, fled into a nearby herd of pigs, and drove then over a cliff. A non-supernatural version might be that the man was an epileptic, and had a fit in front of Jesus, who, assuming demon possession, as one would in those days, admonished the demons. The man's fit came to a natural end, but his thrashing around frightened the pigs, which stampeded. In neither account, biblical or naturalistic, did Jesus deliberately drive the pigs over the cliff.
What has that to do with frightening a herd of pigs over a cliff, to no good purpose? There is no suggestion Jesus compensated the farmer for their loss.
No I'm not. It's a light hearted post that demonstrates the fallacy of your own argument.There was nothing fallacious about my argument. Russell said that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. There are degrees of admirability.
If memory serves, the biblical account says the Jesus exorcised a man who was possessed by many demons, who frequently threw him to the ground, as indeed they did when he met Jesus. the demons, having been banished, fled into a nearby herd of pigs, and drove then over a cliff. A non-supernatural version might be that the man was an epileptic, and had a fit in front of Jesus, who, assuming demon possession, as one would in those days, admonished the demons. The man's fit came to a natural end, but his thrashing around frightened the pigs, which stampeded. In neither account, biblical or naturalistic, did Jesus deliberately drive the pigs over the cliff.
Of course he was a man of his time - he was fully man as well as fully God. Therefore, he accepted the universal beliefs of his time.
I agree a seizure, which is quite scary, could be thought to be demonic possession, to people in those far off days, before they knew any better. As demons don't exist in reality, if Jesus believed that nonsense to be true, it proves he was no sort of god, but just a man of his time.
Of course he was a man of his time - he was fully man as well as fully God. Therefore, he accepted the universal beliefs of his time.
And what verifiable evidence do you have that the guy was any sort of god?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
There was nothing fallacious about my argument. Russell said that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. There are degrees of admirability.You've forgotten what you were arguing about. Shaker said that Russell "was sharply critical of Jesus". Your attempted refutation to that was your fallacious argument that just because Russell never wrote "Jesus is not admirable" that means Russell thought he was admirable.
You've forgotten what you were arguing about. Shaker said that Russell "was sharply critical of Jesus". Your attempted refutation to that was your fallacious argument that just because Russell never wrote "Jesus is not admirable" that means Russell thought he was admirable.I didn't say that. Try reading what people actually post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemmaIf those are the only choices, I'm going with liar with a dash of lunatic. Of course, they aren't the only three choices. Jesus might have been fictional or he might have been a preacher onto whom all the gods stuff was projected later by other people.
I didn't say that. Try reading what people actually post.
If I recall correctly, Russell opined that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus, but that's a matter of degree. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. I haven't read the other books.
This is you isn't it?Yes - and I didn't say that Russell said that Jesus wasadmirable, either.
Yes - and I didn't say that Russell said that Jesus wasadmirable, either.You wrote it in response to a post claiming Russell was sharply critical of Jesus and it didn't look like you were agreeing with it. Context matters.
Maybe you should try putting your brain in gear before engaging your mouth. Everyone, whatever their religion or lack thereof, agrees that Jesus was a good, patently honest and sincere person, but you want us to believe that he was a con-man.
Seriously? Lewis's daft trilemma?I would be interested in your warrant for the above especially when the ''lack of grounding in religion'' light and bells ring out whenever you comment on these matters.
There are so many things wrong with it, for example: the accounts of what Jesus said may well be inaccurate or embellished, even if they could be considered accurate, it's questionable if he actually thought he was god, and, even if that were the case, being delusional about being god doesn't somehow prevent him saying some sound things about morality - people (and delusions) are more complicated than that.
I would be interested in your warrant for the above...
...especially when the ''lack of grounding in religion'' light and bells ring out whenever you comment on these matters.
What has been lacking from every opponent of Christianity on this is a lengthy treatise which doesn't resort to materialism, a non sequitur diversion into science FFS, or ad hominem on Christians. Perhaps you'd like to change that.
Of course he was a man of his time - he was fully man as well as fully God. Therefore, he accepted the universal beliefs of his time.
I was putting the traditional Christian view, to point out that his accepting the contemporary cosmology was not a problem. I should've made that clearer. As for Lewis's trilemma - I don't know what I was thinking of, to be honest, as I had serious doubts about that even when I was a full-orbed evanjellycule.Kudos for that.
Rationality. That really is a daft question - if you think something is wrong with it, point it out.By all means demonstrate how rationality opposes Christianity....without confusing rationality with incredulity that is.
By all means demonstrate how rationality opposes Christianity....
That actually wasn't my claim (on this occasion) - you really do need to pay more attention. I listed some rather obvious alternatives to Lewis's simplistic trilemma and you asked for my "warrant" for doing so.I don't think Lewis trilemma.....did he ever use the term trilemma?.....is meant as a scientific formula.
The alternatives that I listed are bleedin' obvious if you consider the matter at all. However, if you think one or more of them is impossible for some reason, it's up to you to say why.
To me it's main point is the reaction to the claims of Jesus....that he is more than just an ordinary Joe and of existential importance to the individual....comes in three 'flavours'...…..Jesus is deluded due to brain and mental aberration or psychological malformation or educational deficit because that cannot possibly be held by any rational or right thinking person, He is bad and deliberately trying to hoodwink people or it might be true.
Lewis deliberately rubbished the idea of people thinking of Jesus as a moral teacher:That remark is non sequitur.
That remark is non sequitur.
Of course Jesus was a moral teacher but not solely a moral teacher.
Did you actually read the quote? Here it is again:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say.
... which, to nobody's surprise, is every but as much bullshit assertion as was Lewis's own original wibble.Feel free to demonstrate that.
Lewis deliberately rubbished the idea of people thinking of Jesus as a moral teacher:It also ignores the fact that Jesus was decidedly cagey about his relationship with God. He certainly never said "I am God", nor even "I am divine". He said "I and the father are one", and "he who has seen me has seen the father", but neither statement need mean anything more that unity of purpose and complete agreement. (This is where LR comes in with her usual crap about Jesus being "up himself", which she thinks is ever so original and daring.)
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.From: Lewis's trilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma)
This assumes that the accounts we have of what he said are fully accurate, that Lewis's interpretation of them is correct, and that he cannot have had some level of delusion and still come up with some sound moral teaching.
It also ignores the fact that Jesus was decidedly cagey about his relationship with God. He certainly never said "I am God", nor even "I am divine". He said "I and the father are one", and "he who has seen me has seen the father", but neither statement need mean anything more that unity of purpose and complete agreement. (This is where LR comes in with her usual crap about Jesus being "up himself", which she thinks is ever so original and daring.)''He who has seen me has seen the father'' though is a far cry from just claiming to be a moral teacher though.
I wonder if the real Jesus was nothing like the way he was portrayed by the gospel writers, many years after his demise?What warrant do you have for this?
I wonder if the real Jesus was nothing like the way he was portrayed by the gospel writers, many years after his demise?Since there's no way of knowing, it's something of a pointless question.
Since there's no way of knowing, it's something of a pointless question.Which as you have already noted applies just as much to Lewis as to LR.
What warrant do you have for this?Do you have a bet with yourself that every time you use the word 'warrant' in a nonsensical manner that you get to eat one of the Ritz crackers that you spunked on last night?
''He who has seen me has seen the father'' though is a far cry from just claiming to be a moral teacher though.But is equally empty a claim nonetheless.
Since there's no way of knowing, it's something of a pointless question.
But is equally empty a claim nonetheless.
Non sequitur to the question ''is it right/sensible to refer to someone you think as mad or bad enough to claim that if you see him you have seen God the father, as a great moral teacher?''I'm delighted to see that you can at last spell non sequitur correctly; it's a pity that having got there in the end you can't actually deploy the concept properly.
I'm delighted to see that you can at last spell non sequitur correctly; it's a pity that having got there in the end you can't actually deploy the concept properly.Your not getting it or maybe you are and deliberately trying to disrupt the thread since previous bollocks of your understanding was flagged. Lewis is talking about people who can't accept Jesus claim to be the son of God but go on about him being a great moral teacher.
Claiming to be a moral teacher is an empty claim that anyone can make (and many have).
Claiming that "if you see me, you see God" is an empty claim that anyone can make (and many have).
Do you get it now?
Your not getting it or maybe you are and deliberately trying to disrupt the thread since previous bollocks of your understanding was flagged. Lewis is talking about people who can't accept Jesus claim to be the son of God but go on about him being a great moral teacher.I know - Lewis hands down from on high his pronouncement that people simply have to take his word for it that they're not allowed to do that. Why not? Because he said so?
I know - Lewis hands down from on high his pronouncement that people simply have to take his word for it that they're not allowed to do that. Why not? Because he said so?
Do you have a bet with yourself that every time you use the word 'warrant' in a nonsensical manner that you get to eat one of the Ritz crackers that you spunked on last night?This extreme post just takes the biscuit.
No, I think he is rightly exposing the slovenly thinking that one can be both a great moral teacher AND be considered the worlds greatest con man at the same time.To be a con man one has to be conscious of the con; that's to say, one has to be knowingly deceitful. Floo trips up on this point a lot, regularly invoking lies (which by definition entails deliberate mendacity) where sincere mistake is a sufficient, certainly more parsimonious explanation. Can somebody who is entirely and completely sincere about their perceived mission in life but is nevertheless wrong be regarded as a con man?
To be a con man one has to be conscious of the con; that's to say, one has to be knowingly deceitful. Floo trips up on this point a lot, regularly invoking lies (which by definition entails deliberate mendacity) where sincere mistake is a sufficient, certainly more parsimonious explanation. Can somebody who is entirely and completely sincere about their perceived mission in life but is nevertheless wrong be regarded as a con man?
I notice you haven't even attempted to address the points I raised about Lewis. So it goes.
Your claim of parsimony is completely debateable.Occam's Razor. Hitchens's Razor, come to that.
You are claiming that delusion on his part is more likely.Yes. We have many, many, many, many demonstrable examples of deluded people. We have no demonstrable examples of alleged sons of alleged gods.
Lewis discusses this anyway. The thing is are people more likely to be taken in by a sincere madman or a calculating con man or either since the claim is the same. The question remains here. Is believing that when people look at you they are looking at God compatible with great moral teaching?Why wouldn't it be?
At the end it matters not Lewis divides those correctly between those who are prepared to consider that Jesus may actually be who the gospels and epistles purport him to be and those who do not.Correct albeit for different reasons, because I don't think he was either a con man or a particularly great moral teacher. You don't seem to be able to bring yourself to say why, when Lewis flatly asserts that nobody can regard Jesus as simply a great moral teacher and just that, ruling that option out of court, anybody has to accept his fiat. Who made him the authority - which he poses as - on how anyone is allowed to view Jesus?
He has little time with those trying to say ''He was a con man but a great moral teacher'' as I suppose you do to.
Occam's Razor. Hitchens's Razor, come to that.I don't know what argument you are having but it is different from any discussion about the trilemma and whether it's right to suggest that someone who is either the worlds greatest conman, or has a delusion in a way big and bad enough to launch a million internet forums and garner the mouth foaming ire of antitheists, is also a Great moral teacher.
Yes. We have many, many, many, many demonstrable examples of deluded people. We have no demonstrable examples of alleged sons of alleged gods.
I don't know what argument you are having but it is different from any discussion about the trilemma and whether it's right to suggest that someone who is either the worlds greatest conman, or has a delusion in a way big and bad enough to launch a million internet forums and garner the mouth foaming ire of antitheists, is also a Great moral teacher.
You're (like Lewis) ignoring the reality of the situation. All we have are accounts of what Jesus said written long after his death. Even those accounts don't unambiguously contain claims that he was god. Even if we decide he did make that claim, if he was a conman, he didn't need to be the world's greatest in order for the con to be magnified through pure accident of history. If he was deluded (or a conman), it doesn't negate everything he said about morality; and all that ignores the possibility that the accounts we have are not accurate and we may be talking about (to some degree) a fictional character anyway.
Where is your evidence that Jesus claims are not accurate or were not current within living memory of his being?Uh oh ...
Lewis along with many antitheists argues that you can't pull off something which, if a whopper, must be the biggest whopping con in history and be a great moral teacher or even a 'good' man and role model.It's a touching homage to Floo but "truth or lies" are not your only options.
Uh oh ...I fear you are about to confuse historic claims with religion again.
It's a touching homage to Floo but "truth or lies" are not your only options.
I fear you are about to confuse historic claims with religion again.If you mean it's a position espoused by a minority of historians, well done, you're stating a fact for a change.
The Jesus myth thing doesn't have much currency.
If you mean it's a position espoused by a minority of historians, well done, you're stating a fact for a change.I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correct - unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.
Inconveniently, that doesn't actually make it wrong.
I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correctTwo fallacies for the price of one - unimpressive.
unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.Except the evidence for these is in no way comparable.
I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correct - unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.
By all means demonstrate how rationality opposes Christianity....without confusing rationality with incredulity that is.Rationality tells us that liquid water cannot support the weight of a human walking on it. It tells us that water cannot be changed into wine without the addition of sugar and yeast (or unimaginably energetic nuclear reactions) and that a person who has been dead for a day and a half cannot come back to life.
He said "I and the father are one", and "he who has seen me has seen the father", but neither statement need mean anything more that unity of purpose and complete agreement.
I'm afraid analysis and reflection on the Gospels and epistles testify to claims of Jesus special relationship and identification with God and certainly Jesus's role in salvation and forgiveness of sins from an early point in history after the actual life of Jesus. Certainly there is nothing comparable from any school saying that he was merely a great moral teacher.
Where is your evidence that Jesus claims are not accurate or were not current within living memory of his being?
I think it's a very small minority, and since historians are the experts, the view of the great majority is probably correct - unless you want to align yourself with other troglodytes, such as climate-change and holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.
Well, I think many historians accept that Jesus existed, since this is a parsimonious explanation, but of course, they don't deal with any supernatural claims, since these are not historical phenomena.Also what is accepted is that it is more likely that there may have been an individual on which the written Jesus is based but that any individual statement about him, not just the supernatural claims, are not substantiated.
Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is so, especially if there is no evidence to substantiate it.It does when the people are the experts in the field.
It does when the people are the experts in the field.Ah - infallibility.
Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is so, especially if there is no evidence to substantiate it.There is evidence in terms of the study of history for the existence of Jesus though, and the GHG isn't arguing the ad populum that you are misrepresenting him as doing.
Ah - infallibility.Don't see where GHG says anything that can be characterised as that. It's in this case a perfectly valid appeal to authority by being an appeal to those who are authorities. Does that mean it's absolutely certain? No. But it isn't the case that there is no evidence which is what he was replying to.
Ah - infallibility.I said "probably correct" in my original post. Try reading what people have posted carefully before jumping in with smart-arsed comments, if you want to avoid looking foolish.
There is evidence in terms of the study of history for the existence of Jesus though, and the GHG isn't arguing the ad populum that you are misrepresenting him as doing.
Do you want to apologize to GHG for the misrepresentation then?
It is probable a person called Jesus did exist, but I doubt he was anything like the character portrayed by the gospel writers.
I said "probably correct" in my original post. Try reading what people have posted carefully before jumping in with smart-arsed comments, if you want to avoid looking foolish.Not a problem, though I will note that I agree with jeremyp that the position of at least some mythicists isn't on the level of flat earthers. I don't agree with Richard Carrier but he makes a valid case. Also I think that many historians wouldn't take a position on the historicity of Jesus because it's not really a question for them. The idea that there is no evidence though is fatuous.
P.S. - thanks for the support above, NS!
Don't see where GHG says anything that can be characterised as that.Here:
Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is so(#92)
It does when the people are the experts in the field.(#98).
Here:I don't think that reads as infallibility. Rather in the day to day sense of intersubjectivity, we generally accept what authorities in the field say. It's just the same point as Maeght has been making to Spud on evolution.
Do you want to apologize to GHG for the misrepresentation then?
Steve's posts can be misinterpreted as they aren't easy to follow, so sorry.I find him generally one of our clearest posters even if I rarely agree, but kudos to you for using the s word.
Here:(#92)(#98).Slightly careless use of language on my part, I grant you - I should have said "it does make it probable when the people..." - but I did originally say "probably".
To me that reads as a sterling example of the ad populum/numerum and appeal to authority fallacies. Tying the two quotes together GHG explicitly states that: "... When the people are experts in the field, it does mean that because a majority of people believe something to be true, it is so."
You understand that a claim is not necessarily the same thing as the truth, right?IMHO it is Shaker that has been making the confusion aided a bit by the Stranger, not I.
IMHO it is Shaker that has been making the confusion aided a bit by the Stranger, not I.You post is a complete non sequitur, and mostly gibberish.
Claims made are an historical matter whether the claims are true are often a different province.
The Jesus mythers and Jesus never made those claims-ists are making a statement of history.
You post is a complete non sequitur, and mostly gibberish.
Do you ever read what you write and wonder how you ended up like this?I for one certainly do that with you.
I for one certainly do that with you.You're from Leicester and any escape is understandable.
Not the escape of tryi…………...
Do you ever read what you write and wonder how you ended up like this?Vlad, listen to me, Vlad. You are valued, Vlad. Don't worry about it, you can talk to people.