Atheists what is your proof?

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Quite simply, things of the spirit are just not concerned with the physical world. God is concerned with our spiritual well-being, and in a culture where slavery is as common as eating breakfast every morning, why WOULD it impact you negatively. There is much in the Bible, as well as evolutionary psychology, to suggest that the biggest negative impact that "sin" has on us is the damage to our psyches of things like guilt. In a culture where slavery is the norm, why would we feel guilt? For that matter, let me flip the question around on you - why WOULD it impact one's spiritual nature? We as Americans have a tendency to view everything through our own cultural lens and judge the entire world based on it. The fact remains though that slavery was a part of human life for the vast majority of our history. It has only been in the last 150 years or so that we've started seeing it as an abomination, and even then only in certain forms. There are some who would argue that the nature of our society's class system is such that we STILL have slaves.

No slavery is forced. We are not forced. There are slaves today for sure, all kinds in all places that are forced against their will to perform tasks for those who control them. Yes it is an abomination.

Something that your god should have told those stupid f8cks back in the day.

Which was my point. God didn't tell them to do so because god didn't tell them anything. They made it up, thus slavery is acceptable because of the time it was written. It was written by man with knowledge of the time, if god had input slavery would have been condemned.

Hmm - see above. Like many things in this world, I see slavery as a natural component. God allows nature to take its course. However DON'T conflate condone with allow. I see nothing scripturally to suggest he condones it, and unless you can provide otherwise, don't jump into such assumptions.

He is an omnipotent being. Hello. He could have stopped slavery right from the get go. By allowing it he is condoning it because he has the ability to stop it or at least tell us to stop it. He didnt.

Again, see above. Can you not see that those were laws provided for a nation at the time, and not ETERNAL TRUTHS? Why do you need every word in the Bible to be an eternal truth?

What you can't see or will not see is that god would have known it was an abomination and declared it a sin. It wasn't because those who wrote the texts never heard from god.

If god is not worried about the physical world then why is so worried about our sex lives. He seems to be worried about lots of things in the physical but forgot about slavery. I mean WTF ?

As for what eternal truths ARE laid down, pretty much everything regarding one's spiritual nature (as that is the only thing that IS eternal). This would include such things as faith, hope, love, generosity, kindness, peacefulness, etc.

and slavery

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
No slavery is forced. We are not forced. There are slaves today for sure, all kinds in all places that are forced against their will to perform tasks for those who control them.

Again, some would argue (though not me, so we can drop this line of reasoning) that here in America many lower class citizens don't have any other choice than to be in the situations they are in, and as such ARE in fact engaged in a form of slavery.

Yes it is an abomination.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked what would owning slaves impact one's spiritual well-being. And of course to put it in context, why would owning slaves in a world where it is the norm impact one's spiritual well-being?

Something that your god should have told those stupid f8cks back in the day.

Which was my point. God didn't tell them to do so because god didn't tell them anything. They made it up, thus slavery is acceptable because of the time it was written. It was written by man with knowledge of the time, if god had input slavery would have been condemned.

So, if I understand your reasoning - because God doesn't behave the way you think he should, he must not exist? That is so arrogant that it barely warrants response. It is also ridiculously poor reasoning. And in any case, you still haven't answered my question about what makes slavery so inherently evil. Keep in mind, I am not speaking out in support of it. I think we are all better off without it - but I also recognize it as a cultural element rather than some elemental, eternal reality.

He is an omnipotent being. Hello. He could have stopped slavery right from the get go. By allowing it he is condoning it because he has the ability to stop it or at least tell us to stop it. He didnt.

By your reasoning, any universe that isn't rainbows and butterflies must not have a God. There are a whole lot of things allowed, because it is what we do. There is no opportunity for spiritual growth if there is no opportunity for failures and mistakes. Perhaps ending slavery was something man needed to figure out on his own, for the sake of our own character. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God has ever acted as some sort of magic genie, so for you to point out that he is not in fact a magic genie is a waste of everyone's time.

What you can't see or will not see is that god would have known it was an abomination and declared it a sin. It wasn't because those who wrote the texts never heard from god.

You STILL haven't answered my question why. You have taken your perspective, from a single point in time, and decided that you know best. You're going to have to do better than that.

If god is not worried about the physical world then why is so worried about our sex lives. He seems to be worried about lots of things in the physical but forgot about slavery. I mean WTF ?

You aren't even talking about the Bible now. God is not so worried about our sex lives. Puritans were. Americans are. The Catholic Church is. God is not. If you are going to make claims about God's will, kindly produce scripture to back it up.

(And again, don't continue to try to use Levitical law to suggest that it is Gods eternal will. There is a long list of sexual acts in the OT that were deemed unclean - and they were. But we have contraception, modern medicine, and a helluva lot better cleaning practicies these days. They were guides given to protect the Israelites from disease, and if you think that the list of commands didn't do that, you are going to have to produce some specifics.)

and slavery

Why are you so hung up on slavery anyway?

 

[birch]

It is my belief (and generally, that of every Christian and Jew) that the entire Old Testament was inspired by God

uh oh, that's not what you said before. you said that the old testament was wrong and the new testament is of god.

it seems you play cat and mouse with what you believe or what you stand for. the real question is why.

As such, I cannot comment on the NT directly, as I don't recognize it has having divine authority

total contradiction and directly opposite of your position in another thread. you inferred it was the new instead of the old.

 

[SolusCado]

uh oh, that's not what you said before. you said that the old testament was wrong and the new testament is of god.

it seems you play cat and mouse with what you believe or what you stand for. the real question is why.

OMG - you guys sure like to try to twist words, don't you. I never said the Old Testament was wrong. I said that it's laws were replaced with a new code of conduct, as brought to us by Christ.

I have been ULTRA clear in what I believe and why. Are you seriously having trouble understanding it, or just faking it in an attempt to work me into a corner? If you are seriously having trouble understanding, speak plainly and I will respond plainly.

 

[Jan Ardena]

OMG - you guys sure like to try to twist words, don't you. I never said the Old Testament was wrong. I said that it's laws were replaced with a new code of conduct, as brought to us by Christ.

I have been ULTRA clear in what I believe and why. Are you seriously having trouble understanding it, or just faking it in an attempt to work me into a corner? If you are seriously having trouble understanding, speak plainly and I will respond plainly.

I think they're trying to play you.
Let's hope they don't go to plan B and
start calling you names.


jan.

 

[birch]

uh oh, that's not what you said before. you said that the old testament was wrong and the new testament is of god.

it seems you play cat and mouse with what you believe or what you stand for. the real question is why.



total contradiction and directly opposite of your position in another thread. you inferred it was the new instead of the old.

OMG - you guys sure like to try to twist words, don't you. I never said the Old Testament was wrong. I said that it's laws were replaced with a new code of conduct, as brought to us by Christ.

I have been ULTRA clear in what I believe and why. Are you seriously having trouble understanding it, or just faking it in an attempt to work me into a corner? If you are seriously having trouble understanding, speak plainly and I will respond plainly.

i'm not twisting anything. you are the one being dishonest. in another thread, you insinuated or inferred that the old testament was not what god approved of and blamed it on judaic laws or that it was written and not inspired by god. that was your way of evading or excusing the negative or immorality that was condoned in the old testament.

Still, your line of logic isn't sound. even if jesus brought a new code of conduct in the new testament, it does not negate what was written in the old testament inspired by god. you even say so.

it's you who are being hypocritical and confusing as well as switching/twisting to defend the bible.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

So, if I understand your reasoning - because God doesn't behave the way you think he should, he must not exist? That is so arrogant that it barely warrants response. It is also ridiculously poor reasoning

What is ridiculously poor reasoning is to suggest that an all knowing, omnipotent god would have allowed and condoned slavery.

Yet, you are unwilling to see that.

I am not saying god should act how I think he should. I am saying that if this god allows and condones slavery then he is not a god worth worshipping.

If he is truly an all knowing, omnipotent being who is concerned about our spriritual well being he would have declared slavery an abomination.

It doesn't matter the time, his words should have been for all time.

And in any case, you still haven't answered my question about what makes slavery so inherently evil

Do unto others as you would want them to do to you.

or something like that.

Keep in mind, I am not speaking out in support of it. I think we are all better off without it - but I also recognize it as a cultural element rather than some elemental, eternal reality

I understand and am not accusing you of such. But it should have been an eternal reality declared by god. Because we have come to understand this to be an abomination. Especially when you consider free will. The two are opposed to each other. God should have also known this.

By your reasoning, any universe that isn't rainbows and butterflies must not have a God. There are a whole lot of things allowed, because it is what we do. There is no opportunity for spiritual growth if there is no opportunity for failures and mistakes. Perhaps ending slavery was something man needed to figure out on his own, for the sake of our own character. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God has ever acted as some sort of magic genie, so for you to point out that he is not in fact a magic genie is a waste of everyone's time.

He is not a magic genie ? No, he is an omnipotent supernatural being.

Give me a break Solus. You are really reaching here.

Once more moving the goal posts.

Now this omnipotent being is allowing us to figure this all out on our own. So once again no need for god. We don't need the bible either as it supports slavery.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
What you can't see or will not see is that god would have known it was an abomination and declared it a sin. It wasn't because those who wrote the texts never heard from god. ”

You STILL haven't answered my question why. You have taken your perspective, from a single point in time, and decided that you know best. You're going to have to do better than that.

The question is yours to answer. Why did god allow slavery. Didn't he think that would have an impact on our spiritual being ?

Funny that you are asking me to answer a question that you should have been asking yourself a long time ago. Why indeed.

Here is my why answer. Because the god of the bible is just a myth. Created by men of the time.

The bible and all religious texts are solely creations of man.

You aren't even talking about the Bible now. God is not so worried about our sex lives. Puritans were. Americans are. The Catholic Church is. God is not. If you are going to make claims about God's will, kindly produce scripture to back it up.

(And again, don't continue to try to use Levitical law to suggest that it is Gods eternal will. There is a long list of sexual acts in the OT that were deemed unclean - and they were. But we have contraception, modern medicine, and a helluva lot better cleaning practicies these days. They were guides given to protect the Israelites from disease, and if you think that the list of commands didn't do that, you are going to have to produce some specifics.)

If he is not worried about the physical why worry about whether we protect ourselves from disease ?

You are going in circles.

and slavery ”

Why are you so hung up on slavery anyway?

Due to statements like these:

It is my belief (and generally, that of every Christian and Jew) that the entire Old Testament was inspired by God

I have my answer to the why questions because I have asked them myself.

I am convinced there is no known god. That doesn't mean there is no god. Just that we have not interacted with one to date.

We outgrew the god of the bible a long time ago, but people just can't let go. Same for the muslims and all others who claim their god is the only one.

I personally wouldn't care if I didn't consider this type of thinking dangerous in the wrong hands. Think Sarah Palin with her finger on the nuke button.

 

[SolusCado]

i'm not twisting anything. you are the one being dishonest. in another thread, you insinuated or inferred that the old testament was not what god approved of and blamed it on judaic laws or that it was written and not inspired by god. that was your way of evading or excusing the negative or immorality that was condoned in the old testament.

I absolutely did no such thing. I have said many times now that the OT is FULL of judaic law. That doesn't mean it is wrong; just not applicable to today.

Still, your line of logic isn't sound. even if jesus brought a new code of conduct in the new testament, it does not negate what was written in the old testament inspired by god. you even say so.

No, it obviously doesn't change the past and retro-actively change the Judaic laws that applied thousands of years before. What exactly is your point? Do you honestly think that Judaic law still applies? Or should? You know, when I was a child my parents didn't let me cross the street without holding their hand. I've grown older now, and no longer need to do that. It doesn't mean they were wrong to require it in the first place. Your logic is obviously flawed and I cannot believe that you think it isn't. I think you are just trying to get me to say something that contradicts something else that I said so you can point you finger and go "ha ha". If that is indeed the case please take your antics elsewhere. I'm only interested in grown-up conversations here.

it's you who are being hypocritical and confusing as well as switching/twisting to defend the bible.

Far from it. Feel free to scour my posts and find two that contradict one another. Perhaps I am just using sentences with too many words? Do I need to speak more simply, so that you don't get confused?

 

[birch]

I absolutely did no such thing. I have said many times now that the OT is FULL of judaic law. That doesn't mean it is wrong; just not applicable to today.



No, it obviously doesn't change the past and retro-actively change the Judaic laws that applied thousands of years before. What exactly is your point? Do you honestly think that Judaic law still applies? Or should? You know, when I was a child my parents didn't let me cross the street without holding their hand. I've grown older now, and no longer need to do that. It doesn't mean they were wrong to require it in the first place. Your logic is obviously flawed and I cannot believe that you think it isn't. I think you are just trying to get me to say something that contradicts something else that I said so you can point you finger and go "ha ha". If that is indeed the case please take your antics elsewhere. I'm only interested in grown-up conversations here.



Far from it. Feel free to scour my posts and find two that contradict one another. Perhaps I am just using sentences with too many words? Do I need to speak more simply, so that you don't get confused?

You know that you are the one who directly contradicted your earlier position and stance but you want to blame me for it and insinuate that i'm confused or not smart enough to grasp your reasoning. i understand that you are intellectually dishonest in this argument.

case in point:

The Old Testament is (for the most part) Judaic Scripture. Christianity is in fact defined by the New Testament, which does not contain such advocations, and in fact calls out such Judaic attitudes as "wrong".


Well, the body of "christianity" as a whole is notoriously difficult to nail down to any particular set of beliefs (see my comment below), but even within the traditionally accepted body of writings comprising the Bible, the entire crucifixion of Jesus arose from continued disputes between his teachings and that of the Pharisees, who were the reigning Judaic authority of the time. The Old testament provides a context for the New Testament, which is its primary purpose in inclusion in the Bible. As to why [most] christians believe both are the "word of God," that is primarily in reference to a couple statements made by Church leaders in the early years of the "Christ movement". That said, belief that the entire Bible is the "word of God" would necessarily apply the teachings of Christ to the misinterpretations of the Old Testament. It wouldn't change the words; just our understanding of them.

this was your response in my query regarding the intolerance as well as many immoral stances of the old testament.

it is a DIRECT contradiction to what you are purporting in this thread. you insinuated in the other thread that the new testament was the true word of god (because you couldn't excuse the ot any other way) and now in this thread you fully state that it's inspired by god. on top of that, you state the new testament is not even inspired by god now.

i'm not misinterpreting you. your arguments are sly.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked what would owning slaves impact one's spiritual well-being. And of course to put it in context, why would owning slaves in a world where it is the norm impact one's spiritual well-being?

unbelievable! i guess that's why the hebrews prayed to their god to deliver them from slavery.

yet you are somehow indirectly condoning slavery or that it's nothing that important. again, unbelievable.

 

[SolusCado]

jpappl,

I started to reply to your last post one element at a time, but your comments are so far off base and so repetitive that I was getting far too annoyed in my responses. It is clear that you expect an Omnipotent God to provide an environment (and rules) that make life "perfect" in your mind. As such, it is painfully clear that you have no vision of the scope of spirituality and eternity - which isn't surprising given the fact that you don't believe in such things. However, that core difference in belief and perspective makes it impossible for you to understand God's Will or God's Plan. It is also why my very clear position seems so confusing to you. Unfortunately, without the proper perspective you won't understand, and it is a waste of everyone's time for me to try to make you understand, so I am withdrawing from this train of conversation. I am just repeating myself at this point anyway. I will however leave you with a couple points:

1. Survival of "God's People" was part of God's plan.
2. Everything else, including comfort and physical well-being/riches are not of His concern.

 

[SolusCado]

You know that you are the one who directly contradicted your earlier position and stance but you want to blame me for it and insinuate that i'm confused or not smart enough to grasp your reasoning. i understand that you are intellectually dishonest in this argument.

case in point:

this was your response in my query regarding the intolerance as well as many immoral stances of the old testament.

it is a DIRECT contradiction to what you are purporting in this thread. you insinuated in the other thread that the new testament was the true word of god (because you couldn't excuse the ot any other way) and now in this thread you fully state that it's inspired by god. on top of that, you state the new testament is not even inspired by god now.

i'm not misinterpreting you. your arguments are sly.

I really feel like I am incessantly repeating myself, and I'm not sure where you're missing the point, so let's take this one line at a time. Where do you feel I suggested that the NT was the "true word of God"?

 

[birch]

I really feel like I am incessantly repeating myself, and I'm not sure where you're missing the point, so let's take this one line at a time. Where do you feel I suggested that the NT was the "true word of God"?

i am not missing any point. you wouldn't just come out and say that you believe both were the word of god. in the other thread, you clearly gave the impression that it was the new testament that was the true word of god (christianity) and the old was not, or mostly not. this is a typical response to any criticisms of the old testament. now you state the new testament is not inspired by god.

 

[dhcracker]

I am Christian. To what are you referring when you ask why I don't hold the same view of the old testament? (Same view as what?) If you are asking why I don't accept the NT as divine, but do accept the OT, it is because Paul wrote in one of his letters (that was later included in the NT) that the scriptures are complete. Nothing should be added to or removed from them. That would include the entire NT, since it wasn't in the picture at the time of his writing.

So because paul says so? That is insufficient I'm sorry I base my beliefs on my own understanding of right and wrong based on real data and experience not on the word of a book.

I agree, if there is a God, he isn't racist. However, I suspect that the ability to communicate with God is a genetic development that first occurred in the Hebrews. During the time of the OT, in a need to protect that genetic marker, it was necessary for the Hebrews to maintain a relatively clean lineage. I believe this is what is meant by "God's chosen people" (remember, no one at that time knew anything about genetics, and wouldn't have been able to describe this in any other way). But you are very correct, that believing one's own way to be the "correct" way, and intolerance of others is a sure-fire recipe to all the atrocities you list. AND, in Christianity, none of those things are taught. (Well, in the NT anyway...)

Hebrews genetically superior for God?? And your god isn't racist??

Perhaps now, but my issue with Catholicism is what it did to the name of Christianity for a thousand or so years.

Were you alive 1,000 years ago? Are you going to punish people living today for what people that lived yesterday did?

Regarding your claim that I am ignoring something... I haven't noticed any specific verses you have raised, but would be happy to provide additional explanation for anything that seems wrong to you.

Please see my lengthy post on page 39 of this thread.

Yes, those who have absconded scripture to control others (like the Catholic Church) make me very skeptical of their intentions as well. Are you suggesting that there are specific verses (or chapters, or books) in the Old or New Testament that fall into that category?

Yes, and I used those on the above listed post a little. However if you seek more proof and are prepared to accept the evidence I will give you more, I see you seem to be basing your faith more on what you hope to be true rather than what the evidence points towards.. for example geneticaly different Hebrews....

 

[SolusCado]

i am not missing any point. you wouldn't just come out and say that you believe both were the word of god. in the other thread, you clearly gave the impression that it was the new testament that was the true word of god (christianity) and the old was not, or mostly not. this is a typical response to any criticisms of the old testament. now you state the new testament is not inspired by god.

No, not at all. I said that the NT was the foundation for Christianity. Which it is. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean I believe it is the infallible Word of God. If you applied that meaning, it was based on things you have heard from others, and assumed meant was also applicable to me. But don't tell me that I am being duplicitous because of the assumptions you make.

Furthermore, I said that Christianity - or more specifically the teachings of Christ - tells us that the OT laws were just that - laws. The NT teaches us that the laws of this physical world, indeed just about anything in this physical world, are not part of the Kingdom of God, and not his concern.

 

[gmilam]

The NT teaches us that the laws of this physical world, indeed just about anything in this physical world, are not part of the Kingdom of God, and not his concern.

Really? Then why pray "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven"?

 

[SolusCado]

So because paul says so? That is insufficient I'm sorry I base my beliefs on my own understanding of right and wrong based on real data and experience not on the word of a book.

You are of course welcome to believe anything you like for whatever reason you like. But I was answering the question of why I didn't believe the NT was the "Word of God" and it was because one of the initial leaders of my faith didn't think so either.

Hebrews genetically superior for God?? And your god isn't racist??

Come on man - why is everyone suddenly trying to put words in my mouth? Do any of you really think I am so stupid as to fall for that? What did I say to suggest "genetic superiority"? As for a genetic marker, do you deny that different races have different genes? If the ability to communicate with God was indeed a genetic change, it doesn't require racism to recognize the need to protect a bloodline to ensure the gene gets incorporated into a sufficient number of people before allowing dilution. This isn't racism; it's biology.

Were you alive 1,000 years ago? Are you going to punish people living today for what people that lived yesterday did?

No, and the only issue I have with "Catholics" (as opposed to the Church) is when they carry on the traditions started with the Church 2,000 years ago.

Please see my lengthy post on page 39 of this thread.

Yeah, that was addressed to Lori, so I never looked at it. I will respond to it with my next post.

Yes, and I used those on the above listed post a little. However if you seek more proof and are prepared to accept the evidence I will give you more, I see you seem to be basing your faith more on what you hope to be true rather than what the evidence points towards.. for example geneticaly different Hebrews....

Close, but not quite. I base my faith on the belief that God is real and has revealed himself in some capacity or another to many people throughout history. I believe the Israelites were the first to make such revelations a part of their life, and the OT is the ultimate result of that. I also believe that God acts through his creation, not in spite of it. This means that it is incumbent upon us to recognize God in creation, not to expect some magic tricks to do it for us. In recognition of that, and in combination with the OT, I believe there were things recognized to be God's work in History, and the missing piece (given a lack of knowledge at the time) is how God did such things (again, through his creation, not in spite of it). This ultimately means that there should be some sort of scientific explanation for everything in the Bible, and understanding how, where, and why is an interest of mine. Genetically different Hebrews is one idea that fits the bill. (So far at least.)

 

[dhcracker]

Really? Then why pray "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven"?

Yes and lets not forget he doesn't accept the divinity of the NT so he can't believe it if he is doubting Jesus as the son of God lol.

This is showing me how some people will refute their peers and lean on a God. If they cannot understand things instead of taking our word for it or spending the time to study the evidence they have to rely on God. Which is somewhat natural I guess, I mean we all can't be scientists can we. However if you are hanging out here you should be able to follow the evidence in the discussion at least if you are posting your own.

 

[SolusCado]

Really? Then why pray "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven"?

Because we should all want the Kingdom of God, those spiritual concerns, to be part of our daily lives. That is how we get closer to God here on Earth. What did you think it meant?

 

[jpappl]

jpappl,

I started to reply to your last post one element at a time, but your comments are so far off base and so repetitive that I was getting far too annoyed in my responses. It is clear that you expect an Omnipotent God to provide an environment (and rules) that make life "perfect" in your mind. As such, it is painfully clear that you have no vision of the scope of spirituality and eternity - which isn't surprising given the fact that you don't believe in such things. However, that core difference in belief and perspective makes it impossible for you to understand God's Will or God's Plan. It is also why my very clear position seems so confusing to you. Unfortunately, without the proper perspective you won't understand, and it is a waste of everyone's time for me to try to make you understand, so I am withdrawing from this train of conversation. I am just repeating myself at this point anyway. I will however leave you with a couple points:

1. Survival of "God's People" was part of God's plan.
2. Everything else, including comfort and physical well-being/riches are not of His concern.

What I have noticed Solus is that once you are in a place that you have no answer you make comments to belittle others in an attempt to deflect.

You are doing it more and more. It's no suprise at this point that you have caved. Unable to answer such questions yourself you simply say that others don't understand you. You don't know anymore of gods will than I or anyone else.

Your whole idea/theory is a contradiction in itself, to atheists and theists alike.

It's an attempt to cover all bases with nothing but speculation, and as CC said, to hide your god. Keep him out of reach so that nothing sticks to him.

Why is that ?

 

[birch]

No, not at all. I said that the NT was the foundation for Christianity. Which it is. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean I believe it is the infallible Word of God. If you applied that meaning, it was based on things you have heard from others, and assumed meant was also applicable to me. But don't tell me that I am being duplicitous because of the assumptions you make.

Furthermore, I said that Christianity - or more specifically the teachings of Christ - tells us that the OT laws were just that - laws. The NT teaches us that the laws of this physical world, indeed just about anything in this physical world, are not part of the Kingdom of God, and not his concern.

i'm not making assumptions, i can only go by what you wrote. you stated here that the old testament was the word of god but in the other thread you alluded that it wasn't. now you state the new testament is not inspired by god. it's interesting that you say here that the new testament is not infallible which is in keeping with your stance that it's not inspired by god but then you state that the old testament is just laws but inspired by god. that's contradictory.

your statements don't make sense. also, in your lenient interpretation of what is fallible or infallible.