Thanks to the Holy Spirit, and Richard J. Foster, I've recently dipped my toe into the waters of various Christian disciplines. Unlike my previous toe dips, this time it's on the deep end of the pool, and I have every intention to jump in, or at least slowly acclimate myself to the water.
Yes, by God's grace this lifelong endeavor will not be a superficial pursuit. Its exciting to learn the value of such disciplines as fasting, prayer, study, simplicity, solitude, etc. I'm intrigued now by writings of Christians throughout the centuries. To borrow a phrase from Justin Martyr, "What anybody has said about truth belongs to us, the Christians."
(Of course, Justin was talking about Christianity in relation to philosophy, and while it's a controversial statement in that regard, I think he's right. I also see real and true correlation between the best of Christian thought being something that has accumulated, through various Christian writings, throughout the centuries. I think it's likely erroneous that we spend so much valuable time pursing the latest and greatest of the Christian writings, rather than the treasures that are in print from throughout the centuries. Of course, that's something that I'm barely learning to do myself. The attraction of modern advertising campaigns is easy to get sucked into, even with Christian literature.)
In case anyone's curious about where to start with something like this, The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence is a good place to begin.
[Also published on The Mind's Eye.]
- D.A. Carson
This guy, like, is, you know, onto something, don't you think?
[Via The Anchoress]
Glenn Lucke on illegal downloads:
My own experience in discussing this topic with students, including Christian students? Overwhelmingly they refuse to stop stealing, even when they acknowledge that they have stolen. I engaged literally hundreds of students about this topic at UVa, and after all the discussing, two root reasons would emerge from the students: 1) I can (technology enables me) and 2) I want to.
With a few exceptions, Christian students engaged in the same stealing, and deployed the same anti-Christian reasoning. One student finally became persuaded that it was stealing, so resolved to steal no more, but wouldn't pay for the 1,000+ songs she had already stolen, nor delete them.
Again, with a few exceptions, the only way to make a dent in the Christian students? Tell them of my personal friendship with Caedmons Call, and how Caedmon's band members related to me their perspective about having their hundreds of hours of hard work taken from them for free. Then the students would say, "Oh. Well, I won't download their stuff. I'll buy their stuff."
Meaning, these students were incapable of submitting themselves to abstract principle, but, if they felt some sentiment for a personal connection, then they might adjust their behavior. Effectively, the Ten Commandments only had force in their lives if they had positive sentiment for the person wronged in a violation of the Commandments.
Some reader will write in, as often happens here, and defend this state of affairs.
It happens almost every time we discuss it here, as well. In a post on lawsuits about four years ago, one commenter even suggested, should I ever be published, it'd be okay to buy a copy of my book that was illegally photocopied by someone selling his copies cheaper.
"I can" and "I (might) want to" was in full effect there, and the concerns of the artist (me!) over supporting his family with his work wasn't in play.
The Boozeheads are discussing abortion today.
Some selected quotes . . .
Abortion is always sad. Abortion as routine birth control is a miserable sign of a numb and promiscuous culture. Third trimester abortion is horrendous. But, these are not reasons to erase the right of women who along with their physicians make decisions that determine their physical and emotional well being.
Some of us view abortion as a medical procedure that by design kills 50% of its patients, thus by definition is “unsafe.”
[A]ssuming we protect a woman’s right to do as she chooses with her body, the question still remains: What about the right of the child growing inside her? This is the primary reason why so many of us are opposed to abortion. We don’t really see the issue as one of a woman’s choice. For that matter, let her do as she wishes to herself. But when you look at the child in her as a separate human being from conception on, abortion is no longer a matter of a woman making a choice about her own body, but a choice about the body of one who is utterly dependent on her for survival.
I’ve never quite understood why so many pro-choice advocates preface their statements with “abortion is bad, but”. It what sense is abortion bad? If abortion is what its advocates say it is, a safe, legal elective procedure, then who cares? Why restrict it at all? Why try to lower abortion rates? It is pretty effective birth control and is probably highly profitable.
I don't get that either. "It's a tragedy, but . . ."
I totally understand the logic of not believing a child in the womb is alive and therefore making an allowance for abortion based on that belief. What I am consistently confused by is the logic that acknowledges a child in the womb is indeed a life but that abortion is nevertheless okay, dependent on the mother's choice. I don't track with that at all. (Despite that I personally am "soft" on the gray area of a legitimate threat to the life of the mother, which actually accounts for a tiny minority of abortion cases in the U.S.)
The BHT discussion is timely, because I was reading on a friend's MySpace blog last night (I know she's reading this, so I might as well acknowledge the impetus to post this discussion was partly inspired by her piece) her rant against "anti-choicers" and I just couldn't follow the logic at all.
In a comment, she ridiculed a "superbly annoying" youngster who failed to see how the war in Iraq causing civilian deaths rendered his support of the war inconsistent with his opposition to abortion. Maybe that does make him a hypocrite, but the logic seems to swing the other way, as well. How is the collateral damage of war any less a gray area than the difficult deliberations of teenage unwed mothers? How can one be so stridently against the war because of the taking of innocent lives but so stridently for "choice" despite that its very purpose is the taking of an innocent life?
Via Shaun Groves, from "An Atheist in the Pulpit" at Psychology Today:
Charles Templeton, the late Canadian evangelist turned journalist, argued that a disjunction between what clergymen say publicly and what they believe privately is so common that serious cognitive dissonance comes with the territory. “Most intelligent clergymen preach to the right of their theology,” Templeton wrote..."They are more conservative in the pulpit than they are in private conversation or when counseling a parishoner.”
Shaun adds:
The article hurls loads of anecdotal evidence at us but none of it supports the theory that this cognitive dissonance is the reason some pastors deconvert. The evidence instead points to a dissatisfaction with the way they’ve been treated by Christians and with various social/moral positions taken by their denomination.
Still, poor argument making aside, they’re right about one thing: The beliefs held by some (many?) pastors are to the left of those they lead and keeping that a secret can jack one up.
I don't think the Church talks about this enough. At least, I don't hear anyone talking about it.
Bob Myers at the BHT confirms some long held suspicions of mine on the state of Christian counseling.
I’m starting to doubt all Christian counseling. I’m so sick of referring people to counselors who just take their money and fail at being directive. And it seems not to matter what the counselors philosophy of counseling is. They just can’t seem to get at the big issues, they rarely if ever call to repentance, and they are timid and passive. I just realized that I have almost never referred anyone to a counselor that they wound up being helped by. Either 1. The counselor was too wimpy. 2. The counselee didn’t like the advice. 3. The counselor was un-Biblical and just gave out psycho-babble.
I do think that spiritualizing every relational (and mental) issue is a very real danger, but I am concerned one of the reasons for the impotence of evangelicalism is a lack of gospel-driven pastoral counsel.
David Bentley Hart goes Ginsu on Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
"[T]he good artists are the people who are, in one way or another, creating, out of deep and honest concern, a vision of life . . . that is worth pursuing. And the bad artists, of whom there are many, are whining or moaning or staring, because it's fashionable, into the dark abyss."Thoughts?
- John Gardner, On Moral Fiction
[via Charis Connection]
Whoa.
“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”What do you think?
- Soren Kierkegaard
[Hat Tip: That ramshackle rumhouse across the road]
For the academicians, incarnational means being able to talk about incarnational, preferably with words like incarnational. But for the genuinely incarnational, it means being able to laugh at the people who always write big fat books full of words. Faith without works is dead, and this includes the faith of intellectuals. Intellectual faith without incarnational works is dead. But such works would not include poring over one another's books, handing them back and forth with compliments or critiques, circulating them in a small band of irrelevant smart people. That reminds of the time someone threw a bunch of Scotsmen down into a pit and they all got rich selling rocks to each other.
. . . Now this is why intellectuals (high rpm) and pseudo-intellectuals (pseudo-high rpm) can sit up until two in the morning talking about how a particular French filmmaker was deconstructing the suburban instantiations of gnosticism with his gritty authenticity, while down the street another man puts them all to shame by getting up three hours later to go duck hunting with his son.
Dr. Greg Bahnsen was one of the great modern apologists for the Christian faith. He engaged in a number of debates with unbelievers prior to his death in the 1990's. Probably the most famous of these is "The Great Debate" with Dr. Gordon Stein on the existence of God.
While working late tonight, I was listening to that debate. Dr. Stein, a scientist, found himself forced to deny the absolute and consistent character of the laws of logic in order to maintain the notion that the concept of immateriality and existence are mutually exclusive. Not to mention that he was completely unprepared for Bahnsen's "Transcendental" argument for the existence of God. The debate contains this memorable exchange:
B: I heard you mention logical binds and logical self-contradictions in your speech. You did say that?
S: I said it. I used that phrase, yes.
B: Do you believe there are laws of logic then?
S: Absolutely.
B: Are they universal?
S: They are agreed upon by human beings. They aren't laws that exist out in nature.
B: Are they simply conventions, then?
S: They are conventions, but they are conventions that are self-verifying.
B: Are they sociological laws or laws of thought?
S: They are laws of thought which are interpreted by men and promulgated by men.
B: Are they material in nature?
S: How can a law be material?
B: That's a question I'm going to ask you. (Laughter)
S: I would say no.
Moderator: Dr. Stein, now you have an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Bahnsen.
S: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?
B: Immaterial.
S: What is something that is immaterial?
B: Something not extended in space.
S: Can you give me an example of anything other than God that is immaterial?
B: The laws of logic. (Laughter)
Okay, building off of yesterday's post on Pat Robertson's call for a hit on the Venezuelan President, it seems nearly everyone's less than enthused about it. Some are more aghast than others. I'll admit to being more amused than outraged.
But now I have an honest question:
What if Hugo Chavez was Adolf Hitler?
What if back then a prominent cleric -- and yes, I'm aware of the humor in comparing Pat Robertson to a prominent cleric -- called for the assassination of Adolf Hitler?
It would have saved countless lives, on both sides, given the assumption that taking Hilter out would preclude a world war.
A year or so ago, the Israeli government sanctioned a hit on a high profile leader of a Palestinian terrorist organization. The man was in a wheel chair, actually, and an Israeli helicopter shot a missile at him.
Many bloggers thought this measure extreme, but appropriate.
German pastor and eventual martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who has given the modern church some of its most important writings on discipleship and community, was once a part of a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. In fact, this resistance is what got him thrown in jail and executed.
Was it wrong for Bonhoeffer to take part in such activities?
Some bloggers, in defending Robertson, are making distinctions between a government assassinating Chavez (which they say is okay) and an individual or individuals killing Chavez (which they say skirts "Thou shalt not kill"). But why? I mean, even if the U.S. govt. okayed its covert ops on the hit, or even if the CIA orchestrated a hit conducted by Venezuelan resistance, an individual or individuals would still have to do the actual killing.
We send armies to war made of individuals trained to do killing.
In a recent Iraq-related thread, a frequent commenter who is generally anti-war, said he is against wars of aggression, but specifically mentioned Bonhoeffer's plan for assassination as something he would support.
I'm not trying to argue a certain point here. Just asking honest questions with a curiosity about honest responses.
Why is what Pat Robertson said wrong?
Or is it only just wrong for him to have said it on TV?
Is it only wrong because it makes Christians look bad or stupid?
If so, since when did "Christians looking bad or stupid" become the litmus test for the moral quality of a thing?
This could open up a lot of tangents. (For instance, if you reason that it's okay to take out one person like Hitler (or Chavez) to save countless innocent lives, are you okay with assassinating doctors who perform abortions? Why or why not?)
The more I think about it, the less I'm of the mind that this story boils down to "Pat Robertson is a moron" or "Man, Christians are looking like idiots in the news again" etc. Now, both of those things might be true, and I'm no fan of Robertson (or any other of the media's favorite go-to Christian talking heads, really).
I'd like to boil down the story to the question "Why is what Pat Robertson said wrong?"
Perhaps I am being nostalgic for the 60s, but I find much more noble and honest existentialism's avowal of meaninglessness followed by despair than postmodernism's embrace of meaninglessness, followed by play and ideological manipulation of the text.
-- from Tremper Longman III, "Literary Approaches and Interpretation" in A Guide to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
I spoke to Bill earlier today outside of church on this subject and he mentioned that I should post on it. Usually when Bill says to post on something (out of an email or personal conversation), I decide to ponder the subject a bit more to gain a better understanding of what I might write as not to completely embarass myself to the world. Invariably, this waiting results in not posting anything at all as the subject is rendered either irrelevant or suppressed by mountains of work. Not today, my friends.
If what I post below offends, confuses, or bothers you, please forgive me as I am still fleshing out some sort of meaning from these thoughts.
Art is beautiful. We were created by a Creator to be creative and create. Why? Do we love music, making movies, writing, painting, sculpting, singing, etc. simply because we are made in God's image and He loves to do the same? It has to be more than, "God made me to love singing so I could reach those unbelievers who also love to sing." Right? Or is the purpose of art simply just that, a means of commonality that can bridge lives and relationships?
I like to think that God created art to make it easier to worship Him. I can (and desire to) write, sing, dance, doodle, etc. It's often easier to tell God I love Him through singing than simply saying it. When I sing, I feel that I am offering who I am back to the "I AM" who made me who I am. In others' eyes, however, this can be dangerous.
I was talking to my friend, Jenny, a few months ago. Jenny is one of these intellectual, artsy types who is quite gifted at expressing herself. She writes songs, poetry and is interested in anything slightly artistic. As we were talking about photography, one of her loves, we got onto the subject of how other people view her work. At times, she mentioned, people would look at her art (in this case, photos), analyze them and say what they felt she was attempting to portray/demonstrate/say through her efforts. A lot of the time, they would get it wrong.
Jenny chooses to express her love to God through photography. Her friends, knowing this goal, would read different meaning into her art than she originally had intended when creating. It got to the point where she told me she was hesitant to publicly show her work as people would view the art and assign meaning into it that may never have been there. This subjectivity, possibly, could be counter to God's desire, character or will for us as humans.
[This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer has his portrait painted for an artist. This old couple comes in and looks at the artwork in the artists' gallery. As they analyze the piece, they say all of these different characteristics that Kramer is emoting through the painting. "He is a loathsome, offensive brute, yet I cannot look away." Pretty funny.]
We are all creative to an extent - some of us more than others. When publicizing art to others, how should one balance one's intended worship expression within the art and letting it become the person taking in the art's own worship? When I hear beautiful music (for some of us this is U2, for others Beethoven), I worship and thank God for music. It is possible that why I am worshipping (or what I am worshipping) is different than what or why Bono was worshipping when he wrote the song.
When I read an incredibly artful passage or poem, I consider God's greatness relative to the mind who orchestrated such verse. Sometimes I "hear" God speak to me through the art and discern truth. Those who are not Christian do not know Truth - but they should not be hindered from hearing an awesome praise song or seeing a sculpture portraying sacrifice simply because they won't "get it." At the same time, we can't write an entire essay to stick next to every piece hanging in a Christian art gallery detailing what the artist did and did not mean while creating the art as to protect "truth" (as if He needs protecting, anyhow).
Thoughts?
"The governing ethical criteria are that it's inappropriate to intend someone's death."
Read the CT interview with John Kilner, president of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
Six hundred years before Christ, there was a man named Zoroaster who founded a religion named after him. Zoroaster taught that there were two gods ? a good god and a bad god who were at war with one another. He encouraged people to join the fight on the side of good. Sometimes, modern day Christians are in danger of assuming these ideas.
Satan is sometimes seen as God?s evil counterpart, locked in combat with God over the souls of men. And so we are called on to choose between these two mighty beings who are present everywhere and active. But this is not a Biblical view at all. Satan is not as powerful as God, nor is he anywhere close. He is a created being, and can be squashed like a bug at anytime. Remember that Satan had to get permission from God to harm Job. Satan is only able to do what God allows him to do. Nothing more. In Job 1:7,
?The LORD said to Satan, ?Where have you come from?? Satan answered the LORD, ?From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.?Satan is not omnipresent. He can only be in one place at a time. We need to be careful when we blame this or that on the work of the Devil, that we aren?t giving him too much credit.
Satan is not pure evil either. There is no such thing as pure evil. Evil is not an equal independent force, opposite of good. God existed before evil did, and he will exist after it ceases. Goodness is rooted in God. Evil, however, is simply a corruption of good. Biblical images of evil, point us back to good. Evil cannot exist independently of good. It only exists, by limiting or corrupting goodness. The Bible calls evil darkness, which is the absence of light or good. The Bible refers to sin as choosing the wrong path, which can only be done by turning off of the right one. The Biblical word for ?sin? means to ?miss the mark?. To miss you must have a mark, a standard of goodness. Evil is referred to as weeds and thorns which are only defined against desirable plants.
That evil only exists as a corruption of good can be clearly understood when one thinks about those things that we consider the most evil. Those things that are the most horrible are corruptions of powerful and good gifts that God has given us: the innocence of children, a mother?s love, sex, leadership etc? When these great good things are twisted, they are very evil. But evil has no independent creative power. It can only corrupt good that already exists.
Perhaps you have heard of the problem of evil. It?s true that the Christian has to come to grips with the existence of evil. But the one who denies God has an even bigger problem. The Christian can at least explain where goodness comes from. And evil is defined as the corruption of goodness. But the atheist can?t explain the existence of good or evil.
God did not create evil. But he did create free creatures who chose to turn from his goodness. That is the origination of evil. But God?s greatest work, the work of salvation through Jesus Christ, is the story of how he will defeat evil once and for all. The cross was God?s answer to evil. God issued both judgment on evil, and mercy to those enslaved by evil through the cross. A sinner transformed into a child of God (2 Cor. 5:17), is a microcosm of what he will one day do for the entire universe. The great hope that we have through Christ is that one day evil will be eliminated once and for all.
?Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away? (Rev. 21:3-4).
If you listen to some people, many of whom are Christians, "fundamentalist" works just as well for a mass-murdering Islamist terrorist as it does for the guy who goes to the church down the street and believes in a six-day creation. For instance, below is a quote from a comments thread on a blog I read. The post itself is a good one, and asks good questions. I'm not linking it simply because I don't want to draw attention to the person who commented (he is a dear friend of mine), but rather to the mindset behind his comment. Here's the quote:
I tend to have a more negative opinion of someone considered fundamentalist. I think of people like Jerry Falwell and Osama Bin Laden. Obviously, Jerry isn't responsible for mass murder, but he does and says stupid things every so often to the point where he has nearly no credible witness to thinking individuals who know his background.Yes, they are both fundamentalists after all, right?
It hurts to see the day when Christians devour eachother with their words, and apparently see many similarities between a mass-murdering terrorist and a guy who's mass-media filtered soundbites they disagree with. I admit I went a little south on my friend based on this near moral equivalence of Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell. An excerpt from my responding comment is below:
I cringed at the juxtaposition of Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell. I'm not a Falwell fan (I know very little about him), but have you really studied him? Paid attention to what he says, versus what you get through the media's filter? Slander is not pretty. I don't know the man and will be content to let God judge his heart. Regarding Osama, I have a lot more concrete evidence that he is a very bad guy, but whether or not he's a "fundamentalist" has little to do with what I think of him. He murdered 3,000+ people.I know the commenter and am quite sure that he does not believe Falwell = Bin Laden. But I believe words matter. Personally, I'm tired of seeing fundamentalists get beat up by their brothers and sisters in Christ and, these days, linked to the terrorist mind-set. No matter how much one might be irritated by certain Christian leaders, I think this linkage is very dangerous and destructive.
It's a cute trick these days, though, to talk about Bible-believing Christians (imperfect as their understanding of Scripture may be) and mass-murdering terrorists in the same sentence. You did it, but you're not alone. Happens all the time. It's a symptom of post-modernism and an example of what passes as post-modern "truth". Sad thing is, I hear Christians slander their brothers and sisters all the time in this way.
"Fundamentalist": It's a label that's been so twisted and distorted, and has been used by one side of the Christian "family" to batter the other. I apologize for my passion here, but I'm tired of the divide we've setup between the "cool, culturally relevant" Bible-believing Christians and the "backwards, fundamentalist, ignorant, Falwell-ish" Bible-believing Christians. Often over the absolute dumbest things (choice of music, views of Christian liberty, etc).
What do you think?
I really enjoy books and movies about Time Travel. Have you noticed that there seems to be two sets of rules about Time Travel?
Rule 1 ? You can travel back in time and change the past as much as you want. When you do so, it will change the future. Here the timeline is fluid. Examples: Back To The Future, Star Trek. For sake of discussion: You go back in time and prevent something bad from happening, like a fatal car accident. Of course, sometimes you find out that by preventing that accident you caused something far worse? like allowing someone worse than Hitler to live, who should have died in the accident.
Rule 2- You can travel back in time, and try as hard as you want to change the past. But everything you do will turn out to be just as it occurred. In other words, your time travel antics are a permanent part of the timeline. Here the timeline is static. Example: 12 Monkeys. For sake of discussion: You go back and try to prevent the fatal accident, but only find that the role you play either causes the accident, or you are somehow prevented from changing anything. And everything you do back then was as it happened originally, even if you didn?t know it.
I have seen a sort of combo position. In The Time Machine (2002), the professor, played by Guy Pierce discovers that each attempt by him to change a past event, still reaches the same result just in a different way. It seems here that what is supposed to happen is going to happen, in spite of us.
What drives me crazy is when movies or books violate their own rules. I hate it when a Time Travel story wants to have it both ways ? Sometimes what is in the current timeline was caused by the character's future time travel (rule 2), but then they are able to change it. (Rule 1). The movie Timeline did this big time.
If time travel were possible, I tend to lean towards Rule 2. Why? Because of the following adage ?
?You can?t go back in time to meet yourself, because you would remember having met yourself before.?I think in order for time travel to be possible at all, the timeline would have to be static. If you were to travel back in time to ?change? something, you would find out that you were part of the original event somehow, or you will be prevented from changing it. Or to put it another way: if it hasn't already happened, it won't.
What do you think?
As a follow up to this post by Rod, below is an excerpt from Steve Beard's latest column: Dinner with Greats, in which he envisions a hypothetical dinner party sitting between Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis:
Freud and Lewis would have much to discuss with regard to pain, suffering, and the devastation of war. "Freud was deeply affected by the First World War," says Nicholi. "He had two sons that were in it. He looked deeply at human nature, trying to understand it, and why human beings would spend so much time destroying one another. And he came up with his theory of the 'death instinct.' That there's not only the libido, the desire to build and to procreate, but also a destructive instinct that was part of human nature."It's a great article. It got me thinking - if you could choose two people from history to sit between at dinner, who would you choose? Leave your answer in the comments.
Lewis would have most certainly understood Freud's perspective, but he ultimately comes at it from a different position. "Of course, Lewis agreed that there was something very destructive, and sinful, about human nature," says Nicholi. "He agreed with Freud that people need alteration. Freud thought they could be changed by psychoanalysis, by introspection, and so forth. And Lewis, of course, thought that the only way people could be dramatically changed was through redemption and atonement. People needed a spiritual rebirth."
In the midst of the plumes of smoke (both men loved their tobacco), it would not be long before their dinner conversation would turn to God. "They would have wonderful arguments about the existence of God," says Nicholi. "Freud seemed to be obsessed with that question. I mean, you read the first letters that we have when he was in college, and they're filled with arguments for the existence of God. And he, at that time, wrote that science seems to demand the existence of God."
Despite his resolute atheism, Freud could not escape his God-hauntedness. "The last book that he writes at the end of his life is on Moses and monotheism," Nicholi points out. "He can't leave the subject alone. I think that they would be off on that topic in two minutes flat."
If you'd like to comment on the article, that would be great too.
I've always wondered that. If you know the answer or have any ideas or can in any way shed light on this for me, please click comments and tell me what you think. Teach me something!
