Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

If only I could hide behind my lack of religious beliefs as a magical shield against criticism... but sadly if you have a point of view and you express it you should be able to discuss it rationally, including the basis for your view, how it was formed, etc.

Hmmm? the atheists going out of their way to be a d*** was not directed at you, it was directed at this:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm Mormon here.

So you believe in a religion started by a convicted confidence trickster / conman, whose "book of Abraham" has been exposed as undeniable fraud?
Why?

All he did was state his religion. It sure seems like he went out of his way to me.

 Gutsnagga wrote:
Hmmm? this was not directed at you, it was directed at this:

I was not sure as to what it was aimed at, however, I felt that I should answer. However, E&C does raise valid points. Would you be so upset if someone raised concerns over Scientology? Or tarot card readings? Or witchcraft? Or Astrology? Or Alchemy? What makes religion special that it can avoid any kind of probe into its validity?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
Hmmm? this was not directed at you, it was directed at this:

I was not sure as to what it was aimed at, however, I felt that I should answer. However, E&C does raise valid points. Would you be so upset if someone raised concerns over Scientology? Or tarot card readings? Or witchcraft? Or Astrology? Or Alchemy? What makes religion special that it can avoid any kind of probe into its validity?

I never stated that he did not raise valid points. I simply said he seemed like he was going out of his way to debate (argue) with someone over the internet. This made him seem like a bit of a donkey-cave, especially from the way he phrased the question.
Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.
I certainly believe people should be able to validate their beliefs, but I thought that the comment was quite unnecessary.

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I never stated that he did not raise valid points. I simply said he seemed like he was going out of his way to debate (argue) with someone over the internet. This made him seem like a bit of a donkey-cave, especially from the way he phrased the question.
Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.
I certainly believe people should be able to validate their beliefs, but I thought that the comment was quite unnecessary.

Fair enough

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I never stated that he did not raise valid points. I simply said he seemed like he was going out of his way to debate (argue) with someone over the internet. This made him seem like a bit of a donkey-cave, especially from the way he phrased the question.
Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.
I certainly believe people should be able to validate their beliefs, but I thought that the comment was quite unnecessary.

Fair enough

Well this is a first.
Striving our way to a better Dakka...

Note that he did not straight out state something like this to any other poster.

I'm sure I remember asking a catholic poster why he hadn't puked on a plate after mass to prove that the holy wafer transmogrifies into a chunk of flesh during the mystic ceremony of transubstantiation. Turns out the transformation into flesh is the kind of transformation where nothing actually happens (it's more, jesus turns into chunks of bread, than chunks of bread turn into chunks of jesus, apparently), however, so puking on a plate after eating a bit of jesus wouldn't prove anything useful.

I'm an equal opportunities rationalist.

And I really am genuinely curious why someone would believe in the Mormon religion, as yes it was started by a convicted con-man, a fact which everybody in Mormonism seems to know but not care about.

At the very least they are pages of off-topic posts, considering that this is a "what do you believe" thread and not a "prove to me that what you believe is real and/or I try to prove to you that you are wrong" thread.

@d-usa: There is an old saying about shooting fish in a barrel. What you have here is someone so pleased with taking cheap shots that he claims fish only come in barrels.

No, I don't believe all religions are the same.

Not all religions come out of hats from the mouth of a convicted conman.
One does.
That is undeniably interesting.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
No, I don't believe all religions are the same.

Not all religions come out of hats from the mouth of a convicted conman.
One does.
That is undeniably interesting.

And has absolutely nothing at all with the topic and purpose of this thread.

*shrug*

I think we've had some interesting, engaging conversations crop up in this thread, and think we're all the better for having not just shared views, but also discussed them.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I'm an equal opportunities rationalist.

Evil & Chaos 524739 6159988 null
wrote:No, I don't believe all religions are the same.

Back on topic:
I don't believe all religions are the same, but that still doesn't mean you can be rude/disrespectful to others.
And I personally don't think many of the conversations in this thread have been interesting.

A fair bit of it has just been 'INTERNET ATHEISM, HURDUR LOGIC AND REASON HURDUR I'M BEING PERFECTLY REASONABLE, BUT YOU ARE NOT.'

And I personally don't think many of the conversations in this thread have been interesting.

A fair bit of it has just been 'INTERNET ATHEISM, HURDUR LOGIC AND REASON HURDUR I'M BEING PERFECTLY REASONABLE, BUT YOU ARE NOT.'

In the forms of rational debate, this is known as "strawmanning the argument", wherein you build a caricatured version of your debate partner's words or attitude, then, (having stripped your debate partner's words of any of their actual content or inference) knock down the hollow shell of what remains.

Personally, I'm still waiting for "The Bringer" to return on his half of his "challenge" that he laid down.

 The Bringer wrote:
I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them...

I answered his challenge: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146451

And he has promised a reply: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146815


That will definitely be more interesting than people refusing to talk about a convicted fraudster.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

And I personally don't think many of the conversations in this thread have been interesting.

A fair bit of it has just been 'INTERNET ATHEISM, HURDUR LOGIC AND REASON HURDUR I'M BEING PERFECTLY REASONABLE, BUT YOU ARE NOT.'

In the forms of rational debate, this is known as "strawmanning the argument", wherein you build a caricatured version of your debate partner's words or attitude, then, (having stripped your debate partner's words of any of their actual content or inference) knock down the hollow shell of what remains.

Personally, I'm still waiting for "The Bringer" to return on his half of his "challenge" that he laid down.

 The Bringer wrote:
I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them...

I answered his challenge: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146451

And he has promised a reply: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/524739.page#6146815


That will definitely be more interesting than people refusing to talk about a convicted fraudster.

In response to strawmanning the argument, that was just one example of the lack of content this thread contains. I do not think it is purely the internet atheists that have done a poor job of debating. That is just one of the largest cases of what I'm talking about occurring.

Also, I have no conversational partner on this thread. The only user I discussed things with was Silver, and we resolved that. I was not actually a part in these conversations, so never fear that I am stripping any debate partner of mine's attitudes (which I am presenting quite reasonably using internet atheists as an example) or words.

And yes, I do think people should stick around on threads a bit more, and not just leave them with questions unanswered.

 daedalus wrote:
I'd say I'm an agnostic with strong leanings toward atheism. I have no evidence that any religion is correct, and, since they all exist to a certain extent beyond the scope of observation, there's no real way to disprove them, so I can't say they're not all false. By the same token, my default position has to be that none of them are true.

I definitely find myself rallying against religions when their practitioners seem to believe that their teachings include the words "...and you can use this as an excuse to be a dick to people."

As a subject of study, Buddhism is particularly interesting to me, though it feels almost more philosophical than actually religious in nature.

There's no reason to think that any religion is correct. And Buddhism does seem far more like a philosophy than a religion.

@evil&chaos

#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

There is only one good reason I could give from reading the passage, and that is that some of the Israelites were not faithful to God, and some that were not Israelites probably did believe in God. The action of putting blood on your door would have been a public proclamation of where you stood on the matter.

#2 - Jesus says before he ascends into Heaven that he'll be back to begin his reign on earth before everyone-then-alive had died. He then goes AWOL for 2000 years.

What verse is this? Sorry.

#3 - Hebrews 6:18 says God can't lie. In Genesis God lies to Adam (when he tells Adam that if he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, he will die within one day. Adam eats the fruit and goes on to live until the age of nine hundred and thirty).

In Genesis, it says that "You will surely die". What translation of the Bible are you getting that from?

#4 - The words above Jesus on the cross are given four times, each time different:
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"

Alright, so we've made the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God. So I compared the Greek between the 4 passages, and all include the same phrase, "Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων" which means the kind of the jews. Some are proceeded by another phrase, and some followed by another phrase. One could make an argument that part of the inscription wasn't included, and all of the gospels agree on what was said. So none of the Gospel said anything that contradicted with the other, they simply omitted some of the text because face it, they wrote these long after the actual events occurred. Its amazing that the accounts were so similar.

#5 - Jesus was crucified at three o'clock (Mark 15:25), and six o'clock (John 19:14-16).

Good one. Very good one. I've heard this one before. Basically the Romans and Jews had a different way of keeping time. Both the accounts, assuming they were using the same system, do contradict. However, if you take it that Mark wrote in the Jewish time, and John in the Roman time, they say the same thing. Honestly this isn't much of a stretch because Biblical scholars have said that Mark's style of writing had been "very Jewish" whereas John wrote in a much more "gentile, Roman" manner.

Hey, you didn't answered me either.
Why do God asks of Jews to stone blasphemers if he is not an horrible evil bastard ?
Why should I have been stoned to death if I had done the very same thing I do now, but before some guy which is actually God decided to let people kill him on a cross ? Would what I did be more morally wrong, or something ?

Yeah, I'm kind of insistent on that, but it's because I really really don't like being stoned to death, for some reason that's quite a big deal to me .

 The Bringer wrote:
There is only one good reason I could give from reading the passage, and that is that some of the Israelites were not faithful to God, and some that were not Israelites probably did believe in God. The action of putting blood on your door would have been a public proclamation of where you stood on the matter.

Because God couldn't know without massive display of gore ? Also, I thought the punishment had nothing to do with believing in god or not, because obviously there were millions of other peoples all around the world that didn't believe in god, didn't splash gore on their doors, and didn't get their first-born to die.

I made up my own religion, which encompasses my beliefs within it.
Basically goes like this- there are 3 deities (one of life, one of death and one of balance) imperfect, and thus we were created imperfectly.
They each have influenced us for unknown reasons, but ultimately have no real care for us. They have many races spanning the stars.
When we die, we die. Upon earth we must find harmony in all things, in our imperfections.
All suffering and imperfection ends upon the coming of Kona, who is a being that destroys the 3 imperfect beings and becomes the perfect deity. And brings the unknown perfection to the imperfect.

Onward, Konite soldiers!

Marching as to war,

With the life of Kaunis

Going on before.

 The Bringer wrote:
@evil&chaos

#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

There is only one good reason I could give from reading the passage, and that is that some of the Israelites were not faithful to God, and some that were not Israelites probably did believe in God. The action of putting blood on your door would have been a public proclamation of where you stood on the matter.

A lack of belief after the first nine plagues would be pretty damned unlikely - even Pharaoh believes by that point, it's just that God won't let him let the Hebrews go (God screws with his free will and "hardens his heart").
Nor would a public proclamation be required, if God knows everything - the text makes it clear that it is not a public proclamation (who to? it is night, nobody's going to see the blood other than God), but a piece of "blood magic" to keep God from sending his destroyer across the threshold ("blood magic"/"sacrificial magic" is very common in the Bible, up to and including the sacrifice of Jesus).

The ten plagues of Egypt are interesting in part because after God sends the first 4 or 5 plagues (I forget how many), the wizards of Egypt are able to equal them.
It's only about half way through the wizards of Egypt stop bothering to show up (they decide they don't have the power to summon a plague of lice, IIRC, even though they managed to summon a plague of frogs without trouble).

Anyways, from your answer it's clear that you can't give a firm reason as to why this isn't a contradiction in the Bible between God being presented as knowing everything, and God needing some pointers as to which babies to murder. I'll also note that no non-Hebrew first born babies were spared IIRC, which refutes the second element of your supposition.

#2 - Jesus says before he ascends into Heaven that he'll be back to begin his reign on earth before everyone-then-alive had died. He then goes AWOL for 2000 years.

What verse is this? Sorry.

Matthew 16:28
Yes! I tell you that there are some people standing here who will not experience death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom!”

Jesus was wrong, unless some of the people standing there are still alive.

#3 - Hebrews 6:18 says God can't lie. In Genesis God lies to Adam (when he tells Adam that if he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, he will die within one day. Adam eats the fruit and goes on to live until the age of nine hundred and thirty).

In Genesis, it says that "You will surely die". What translation of the Bible are you getting that from?

The majority of them.
Some translations omit the reference to "in that day".
But in most translations (95%+ of them, so let's be reasonable and assume they're most likely getting it right), it's on the day the apple is bitten, death occurs.

The line is Genesis 2:17:

King James 21st:
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”

American Standard Version
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Amplified Bible
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Common English Bible
17 but don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because on the day you eat from it, you will die!”

Contemporary English Version
17 except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!”

Darby Translation
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Easy-To-Read-Version
17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”

English Standard Version
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

1599 Geneva Bible
17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the [b]death.



I can pull up a couple dozen more translations if you like, to make it very clear that it's an undeniable mis-translation to omit the reference to death occurring on that day?
If you really insist, I'll even work out my own translation by learning the hebrew meaning of each word, but I don't think that's necessary.

#4 - The words above Jesus on the cross are given four times, each time different:
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"

Alright, so we've made the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Actually no, you challenged for contradiction, which I provided.
I don't need to make the claim that the Bible is the word of God, in order to spot contradictions within it.

Do you make the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God?
Presumably you must believe it to be free of contradiction, since you challenged people to find contradictions.

o I compared the Greek between the 4 passages, and all include the same phrase, "Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων" which means the kind of the jews. Some are proceeded by another phrase, and some followed by another phrase. One could make an argument that part of the inscription wasn't included, and all of the gospels agree on what was said. So none of the Gospel said anything that contradicted with the other, they simply omitted some of the text because face it, they wrote these long after the actual events occurred. Its amazing that the accounts were so similar.

So the contradictions prove they are divine because they only slightly contradict each other, even though they were written a long time later.
I think there are a good number of other reasons for similarity, beyond "God did it".

And honestly, you're too-easily glossing over the fact that each time the inscription is given, it's different. That is a contradiction.
If one man comes to me and says a sign says "THIS IS BOB, KING OF THE PLEBS" and another man comes to me and says a sign says "THIS IS BOB FROM LONDON, KING OF THE PLEBS", what we have there are two accounts that do not match.

We are left with the inescapable conclusion that either one is false, or both are false. They cannot both be correct, because that would be a logical contradiction.

#5 - Jesus was crucified at three o'clock (Mark 15:25), and six o'clock (John 19:14-16).

Good one. Very good one. I've heard this one before. Basically the Romans and Jews had a different way of keeping time. Both the accounts, assuming they were using the same system, do contradict. However, if you take it that Mark wrote in the Jewish time, and John in the Roman time, they say the same thing. Honestly this isn't much of a stretch because Biblical scholars have said that Mark's style of writing had been "very Jewish" whereas John wrote in a much more "gentile, Roman" manner.

Citation needed that the Romans and the Jews were using time systems that were 3 hours out of sync.
Citation needed that John writes in a more Roman style.

Did you find my bonus #1 & bonus #2 interesting too?

Ta.

I find it interestig that you claim to have such a knowledge of the Jewish text and at the same time display such a complete lack of knowledge regarding prophecy and the symbolism and foreshadowing present in these events.

The blood issue alone is enough for me not to take your claims seriously, since it appears that you missed the simplest lesson of that story.

Your "death" issue is just another example of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't see a person actually discussing spiritual or religious things. You seem like you are making arguments about specific words as if they have a single meaning and specific events as if they could only have a single meaning that you have already predetermined.

When people make claims of a biblically literal nature or that the bible is a direct communication from god, it is reasonable to look at the text critically.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
When people make claims of a biblically literal nature or that the bible is a direct communication from god, it is reasonable to look at the text critically.

Very true, and I would not argue against a critical look at a text.

But the arguments being made are not just the result of a critical look at the text, they also rely on his specific definitions and interpretations being the only acceptable answers.

Like the Genesis "death" arguments. His whole argument relies on his belief that the death that is mentioned in that passage could only mean an instantaneous physical death and since neither Eve nor Adam instantly fell dead to the ground God must be a liar. It ignores spiritual death, it ignores death of a relationship, it ignores death of a certain promised way of life, it ignores that they did in fact at some point experience physical death.

Like the blood argument: His argument on that relies on his belief that the blood could only be meant as a message to God and that it means that God must not be able to know about each family without it ignores all other possible meanings.

And I truly have absolutely zero problems with people talking about "here is what I believe" and then somebody countering "here is what I believe".

It's the whole "here is what I believe" followed by the "well, here is why I think you are wrong, now prove to me that my interpretation of that text is not the only correct interpretation that could possibly be acceptable" response that gets on my nerves.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't see a person actually discussing spiritual or religious things.

And by “spiritual or religious”, you mean “vague, blurry, substance-less statement that holds no true meaning and can be distorted as will”. How appropriate !
What's next ? “Pope whateverhisname (they change so quickly these days) is dead !!! And by dead, I mean he hurt his finger, which is kind of like dying if you think about it in the right way”


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though maybe actually God is in fact just some old king, and this whole omnipotence, immortality, ubiquity is just not some “physical omnipotence, immortality and ubiquity”, but rather some “spiritual” one.
Hey guys, I'm spiritually omnipotent, immortal, ubiquitous too, please start worshiping me too !

...the arguments being made are not just the result of a critical look at the text, they also rely on his specific definitions and interpretations being the only acceptable answers.

I don't think I've made too many assumptions in my analysis.

Like the Genesis "death" arguments. His whole argument relies on his belief that the death that is mentioned in that passage could only mean an instantaneous physical death and since neither Eve nor Adam instantly fell dead to the ground God must be a liar. It ignores spiritual death, it ignores death of a relationship, it ignores death of a certain promised way of life, it ignores that they did in fact at some point experience physical death.

Sure, I assume "death" means "death", and not "something that's not death".

God is claimed to be a perfect being - can the perfect being not say what he means in an easily intelligible manner?

Like the blood argument: His argument on that relies on his belief that the blood could only be meant as a message to God and that it means that God must not be able to know about each family without it ignores all other possible meanings.

I rely on the text in Exodus 12 saying that the blood is a sign that God will look at to decide whether or not to enter the house and murder the firstborn babies inside.

Look at it this way:

- If the blood isn't required as a message to a (non-omniscient) God, then God is requiring a blood rite propitiation from his believers, otherwise He will MURDER the babies of His own believers!

Honestly, my interpretation is rather charitable (morally speaking) compared to the moral message delivered by a truly omniscient God in that passage.

Moral message by a non-omniscient God: I have come to save you from oppression and strike at your captors! Make a sign so I don't accidentally murder your babies!

Moral message by a truly omniscient God: I have come to save you, but only if you supplicate yourselves before me by conducting a blood rite; if you don't conduct a blood rite animal sacrifice and propitiate as I demand, I will murder your first born babies along with the Egyptian babies! I AM A NICE GUY!


I think the moral message delivered by a non-omniscient God is much nicer than that delivered by a God who knows everything.

And I truly have absolutely zero problems with people talking about "here is what I believe" and then somebody countering "here is what I believe".

It's the whole "here is what I believe" followed by the "well, here is why I think you are wrong, now prove to me that my interpretation of that text is not the only correct interpretation that could possibly be acceptable" response that gets on my nerves.

The Bringer laid down the challenge in this case, and I in my semi-competent manner accepted the challenge.
*shrug*

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't see a person actually discussing spiritual or religious things.

And by “spiritual or religious”, you mean “vague, blurry, substance-less statement that holds no true meaning and can be distorted as will”. How appropriate !
What's next ? “Pope whateverhisname (they change so quickly these days) is dead !!! And by dead, I mean he hurt his finger, which is kind of like dying if you think about it in the right way”


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though maybe actually God is in fact just some old king, and this whole omnipotence, immortality, ubiquity is just not some “physical omnipotence, immortality and ubiquity”, but rather some “spiritual” one.
Hey guys, I'm spiritually omnipotent, immortal, ubiquitous too, please start worshiping me too !

you're not Kona!

boo

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
you're not Kona!

Would you bet your eternal soul and risk an eternity of suffering at the hand of tormentors that would make even the worse Dark Eldar cringe for many eternities on that ? Your call, really. It's just that it would suck for you if you were wrong.

@evil&chaos, you make many fair points. I will spend more time on it and respond hopefully by Tuesday.

Ok, it seems pretty obvious now that you are purposefully ignoring me, Bringer.
I'm left to wonder why.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
you're not Kona!

Would you bet your eternal soul and risk an eternity of suffering at the hand of tormentors that would make even the worse Dark Eldar cringe for many eternities on that ? Your call, really. It's just that it would suck for you if you were wrong.

I am willing to bet a life one cannot prove exists to me. You can try and scare me with all that heaven and hell mumbo jumbo, but I didn't buy it as a child and I am not buying it now.
Suck for you if I'm right (well not really, according to the Book of Kona, when you die, you just die, until Kona's awakening-then perfection awakens)
One should want to be a part of a faith because they believe what it teaches, not because they are trying to scare you into it.. That's just brainwashing control/
If I genuinely wanted to be Christian I'd pick a church from one of the hundreds that exist and go there. But I don't believe what they teach and fear of suffering when I die scares me and more then death itself does.
I refuse to live a life of fear of something no one can prove exists, besides what a book says.

I choose to believe what feels right to me. Nothin' set in stone, and my beliefs are constantly evolving the more I experience. So long as I don't do something that is harmful to others, and try to be a good person, maybe that'll be enough for the big guy in the sky.

So, I choose Other.