Would it be acceptable?

[Dr. D]

Thus i suspect it would not say such a thing. It teaches and mimics and mentors the principles of love and understanding of the god of the bible, which is one reason also why i chose christianity. But clearly all gods of "the book" are one and the same god. Jewish christian and muslim. I would go further and suggest that manifestaions of this one physical god have led to the creation of many religions over human history. People and cultures put their own face, interpretation and emphases on what they encounter, leading to a variety of perceptions of the same god.

I know i do The god i know and live with is very similar to other gods yet different. He doesnt ask me to worship him, just to be one with him. He models his expectations of my behaviour, yet excuses/understands my inability to quite meet his standards of; thought, deed and principle. He just asks me to keep trying and to try and give all that I can.

Why have this suspicion? It may teach the message of the Bible but reveal that the New Testament was the work of men, not God. Historically, far more criticism and doubt have been centered around the New Testament than the old, so the criteria has been established.

We are not questioning the existence of God. After all, the message came from God.

[Dr. D]

This is a very nice observation, Mr. Walker

And to Dr. D, I think I may have slightly misunderstood your original question. I thought you were asking what would happen if a Christian person had this "experience", would it change their perspective, etc. I believe you were leaving it more open to just anyone having the particular experience in question. In that case, I tend to think the experiencer themself would most likely come to a new view and perspective on the world, while others would probably tend more towards being skeptical about said experience, whether or not it happened, and it's meaning.

Then when non-believers hold the experiences of Christians in suspect, they are doing what is natural, right?

[Rock-Star]

Then when non-believers hold the experiences of Christians in suspect, they are doing what is natural, right?

At least to me, I would think this to be natural. Heck, I was raised to be Christian and I hold a lot of their experiences and beliefs as suspect

[+Sherapy]

Sheri

First, about 30-50% of adults in the US and UK report having had such an experience (it is a rotating Gallup Poll question, and has been asked since the 1960's. Response rates vary with the wording, and other factors, as with any poll question.)

Some of the experiences present as secular. The famous example is James Joyce's first glimpse of Nora Barnacle in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Joyce goes on to analyze whether such experiences can be intentionally induced in others, and concludes that they can be, by artists, but even by such impersonal things as vast empty space.

(Note to Chloe, Tennyson considered whether such experiences could be intentionally induced in oneself. Yup.)

Of the experiences that present as spiritual, they do not necessarily disrupt what the person already believes, or traffic in ideas other than what she is already familiar with. Richard Bucke, who put the term cosmic consciousness into the langauge is an example, and he gives many other examples in his book.

The most famous case report is probably Jesus' theophany at his baptism, and his interview with Satan that followed soon after. Jesus may have been energized, made more confident of his faith, and achieved a clearer picture of where he fit into the struggles of his people. Nevertheless, he was a Jew before the experience, and remained a Jew until his death.

So, what would be extraordinary enough to carry with it the potential to make some radical change?

Psychotic break, also called acute schizophrenia. This is thought to be a factor in shamanic initiation, and so has a religious pedigree. U.G. Krishnamurti (not to be confused with Jiddu K.) plainly had an acute episode, and emerged as a popular guru. The best case report is R.D. Laing's edit of Jesse Watkins' first-person account in Politics of Experience. Watkins (re)invented a non-canonical theology during his hospital stay.

What happens in a break is "death of the personality" (waking ego). It is a short-term disability, weeks to months if all goes well, and what emerges at the other end is a new personality, possibly a happier one than the personality who died. What goes on in between can be a kind of interior journey, something that is experienced as being active, not a passive waiting like getting over an illness often feels.

And then of course there is Jung's Red Book. It is simply an extraordinary work of art and literature. Jung was a Christian, and that shows through, but it really wasn't his father's Christianity. Jung shows many symptoms of psychotic break except that he was able to function normally most of the day, and continued his professional practice.

Jung didn't attribute his experience to God. Or, at least, not exactly. But famously, when asked in his old age whether he believed in God, Jung answered that he knew there was a God.

Bottom line (and without lapsing into a discussion of "confirmation bias" and all that jazz): almost by definition of "usual," we will integrate most experiences we have into our usual body of beliefs. Experiences come with a range of intensities, but even intense material is capable of being integrated. We know that because people do it all the time. Only exceptionally ("once in a lifetime" and not in every lifetime) would we have an experience that remade our psyche.

Since you would be more or less literally a different person before and after, it can hardly be surprising that you would have different beliefs before and after. So, fine, that is "belief change." But the mechanism is nothing like "Oh, look, a piece of evidence... well, I think I'll give more weight to hypothesis h than I did before..."

More like BAM, (Time passes), "Let me explain God's plan to you..." And the "me" who says that didn't exist this time last year, and may well not even have cared about God, much less aspired to be his prophet.

(Disclosure of bias: A few years ago, I was a bystander at someone else's death of personality. Even to see it happen to someone else is riveting. As with Jung, this person was able to maintain a professional life during the crisis. Seeing it didn't change my "religious" views, but I cannot think of human personality as something stable anymore. It isn't just our bodies that are mortal.

Perhaps Miyagi-san would chime in from a Buddhist perspective, "No s---, Sherlock.")

@ 8ty and Chloe-bear,

Ain't that the truth about 8ty ,he keeps my head organized too . (whatta man, whatta man, whatta mighty good man..... )

Thank you for this insightful post. I'm gonna read Red Book.

This topic has held some fascination with me over the years.

One of the religious studies courses I took some time back, went into 'mystical experiences' and the few cases worth claiming a g-d sighting were interpreted.

I see we agree it's basically rote retrieval of stored long term memory.

I personally have first hand experience with two schizophrenia's, and, it is some serious serious stuff.

Culturally we have a limit on those claiming that they know g-d,on one hand that's okay/kool as long as it's not bothering anyone, but the second they start acting on behalf of g-d ( as in my mom's case ) G-d was telling her to kill my sister. We have places for these folks to get help.Thank goodness!

Edited December 15, 2010 by Sherizzle

[IamsSon]

Ah, from my experience, I would also worship God but I would not accept the tale of Jesus.

Thus why you're not a Christian.

And by what measure of logic or right would the Christian find his experience glorious and dismiss mine so easily?

By the same logic that you would most likely dismiss me with little or no consideration if I came to you and told you, you're actually living in Uganda, not Southern Mexico.

If the experience itself discredits Christianity, why would it receive more scrutiny from those looking for a way to discredit it?

Because they would want to see if it will assist them in their efforts.

[Donnie Darko]

I hate debates and such, all I'm gonna say is there is no set criteria for me. It's simply based on personal experiences of my own, as Mr Walker so kindly pointed out; it's more to do with my own unique experience and not based on family tradition and whatnot. Not for me atleast. I was raised catholic myself, but went over to christianityl basically only worship God and Jesus and not Mary and the Saints. It was through my own personal experiences, that I progressed over and closer to God. Atleast that's how I feel. So there you have it.

[Dr. D]

Thus why you're not a Christian.

Why would I want to be a Christian if my spiritual experience told me that it was false?

By the same logic that you would most likely dismiss me with little or no consideration if I came to you and told you, you're actually living in Uganda, not Southern Mexico.

I completely fail to see the comparison unless you are claiming that my spiritual experience would be too bizarre to consider and yours completely valid.

Because they would want to see if it will assist them in their efforts.

Sorry, but you're not making much sense here.

[Dr. D]

I hate debates and such, all I'm gonna say is there is no set criteria for me. It's simply based on personal experiences of my own, as Mr Walker so kindly pointed out; it's more to do with my own unique experience and not based on family tradition and whatnot. Not for me atleast. I was raised catholic myself, but went over to christianityl basically only worship God and Jesus and not Mary and the Saints. It was through my own personal experiences, that I progressed over and closer to God. Atleast that's how I feel. So there you have it.

If you believed you were worshipping Mary and the Saints then you did not learn much about Catholicism.

[IamsSon]

Why would I want to be a Christian if my spiritual experience told me that it was false?

Right, that's what I said.

I completely fail to see the comparison unless you are claiming that my spiritual experience would be too bizarre to consider and yours completely valid.

I didn't say it was too bizarre, I just said I would use the same logic to dismiss it that you would use to dismiss someone trying to convince you of something you knew not to be true.

Sorry, but you're not making much sense here.

What is so difficult to understand? People who want to discredit Christianity would be interested in studying the experience to see if it could be used to discredit Christianity.

[+Sherapy]

Right, that's what I said.

I didn't say it was too bizarre, I just said I would use the same logic to dismiss it that you would use to dismiss someone trying to convince you of something you knew not to be true.

What is so difficult to understand? People who want to discredit Christianity would be interested in studying the experience to see if it could be used to discredit Christianity.

In a belief system system that believes they hold the one and only truth, ones reason naturally would be guided towards dismissing anything that doesn't match their truth.

I can go further here and say the reason, in the case of this poster, is because it is seen as a way to discredit Christianity .

So unless the experience was Christian in nature it gets dismissed as a negative.

Now the difference is the way we apply logic, in my case I use it to assign truth value from a neutral position to a given claim .

It's not that one can't have a subjective experience, but that subjective experience are not the equivalent of a fact.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Stellar]

By the same logic that you would most likely dismiss me with little or no consideration if I came to you and told you, you're actually living in Uganda, not Southern Mexico.

What logic would that be?

[Mr Walker]

Why have this suspicion? It may teach the message of the Bible but reveal that the New Testament was the work of men, not God. Historically, far more criticism and doubt have been centered around the New Testament than the old, so the criteria has been established.

We are not questioning the existence of God. After all, the message came from God.

Based on 40 years of living with "god" I suspect (well know really but many people would see that as too absolutist) that "my" god would not act one way and say something else. Hes too smart and has too much respect for my powers of logic.

The god i know is consistent. Crazily consistent sometimes( from my human perspective,) but always consistent. Thus he wouldnt act like the christian variant of god and then tell me the christian variant of god was false.

And i dont think hes particularly interested in the bible or testaments etc., other than as one way to live well. In other words, if the bible provides a guide to help me live better and more completely, then he would approve, but he models the behaviour and principles expected of me. It happens that at heart they match the core principles of the bible and of the koran and of the torah etc. It is not necessary to have a manual when god lives with you, but a manual is a legitimate tool when you are trying to come to terms with god via faith and reason.

I could write my own manual. Some might find it helpful, even; but basically i have concluded that the relationship between god and man is meant to be one on one, and unique to each individual. It has to be, when god lives both in the wider environment and physically with every individaul.

Writing a manual on how to worship god would be like writing a manual telling other people what nature is, and how best to; perceive observe and interact with it. Each of us has to find our own way to perceive and interact withthe natural and built world around us, yet nature(and the built environment ) is there and exactly the same around each of us.(if we are in the same time and place)

Think of it this way. The bible koran etc are generic manuals, using which you can learn to operate and drive a car. They may have been written by people who learned to drive using that model. But driving a mini is different to driving a porche. The principles and practices are the same but the specifications and performances, and appearances, may be very different

Ps i would debate that the old testament is considered more historically reliable, but ill leave that for another time.

I think a lot of non believers challenge the NT more, because they consider that it represents more of a "threat" to contemporary humanity.

I do not consider the bible to be the inerant word of god I suspect from my own expericnes it mightbe the revealed words of god as interpreted by mena nd women with an expereince of god. As i said i could write a book of gods teachings as revealed to me, but there is no guarantee they are inerrant, even when they work perfectly for me in my time and place.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Donnie Darko]

If you believed you were worshipping Mary and the Saints then you did not learn much about Catholicism.

What I can't seem to understand is why your being a smart ass with me, it seems to me like you get off on giving people a hard time or something? It wasn't that I was worshipping Mary and the Saints, it's just that I didn't feel comfortable praying " Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners.." and so on...or lighting candles with pictures of the Saint or "La Muerte" etc... That's all part of catholic dogma where I come from. Atleast in regards to my upbringing and culture and so forth. So yes, I felt it was sort of, misplaced veneration for basically false idols. Those are my own personal observations and conclusion. I actually consider myself open-minded but as for my beliefs, I will die a Jesus follower and that's that.

[Mr Walker]

Then when non-believers hold the experiences of Christians in suspect, they are doing what is natural, right?

When anyone disbelieves another's experiences because they have never had them, or because they fall outside of an established view of what is posible, that is natural. It is not necessarily right.

What would worry me would be if a non believer encountered god, and dismissed it as impossible, because of prexisting disbelief alone.

That is a very easy route to take, unless god persists.

[Dr. D]

What is so difficult to understand? People who want to discredit Christianity would be interested in studying the experience to see if it could be used to discredit Christianity.

Strange that you should see it that way. By all logic, Christians would have the most to gain by disproving the experience. They would also have the most to lose if people started believing the experience to be true.

[+Sherapy]

When anyone disbelieves another's experiences because they have never had them, or because they fall outside of an established view of what is posible, that is natural. It is not necessarily right.

What would worry me would be if a non believer encountered god, and dismissed it as impossible, because of prexisting disbelief alone.

That is a very easy route to take, unless god persists.

MW this is not about disbelieving vrs believing that someone has had a experience.of some kind..

What would worry me would be if a non believer encountered god, and dismissed it as impossible, because of prexisting disbelief alone.

The question is along the lines of what you posted, why should a personal experience by anyone be defined by your interpretation of it, so much so that you would be concerned?

I find that an arrogant position.

Unless you are telling us that NOW you are g-d?

Edited December 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Mr Walker]

MW this is not about disbelieving vrs believing that someone has had a experience.of some kind..

What would worry me would be if a non believer encountered god, and dismissed it as impossible, because of prexisting disbelief alone.

The question is along the lines of what you posted, why should a personal experience by anyone be defined by your interpretation of it, so much so that you would be concerned?

I find that an arrogant position.

Unless you are telling us that NOW you are g-d?

You misinterpreted/misunderstood wha i said . Maybe that is my fault, but more likely your own.

I had already made my point about interpreting experience I was adding that i am not concerned about that; it is natural. But it would concern me if a person met god (in one form or another) but refused to contemplate tha tit could be god because they so strongly believed god did not exist In principle this is the same thing. Allowing a preconceived belief/disbelief to inform your subjective view of objective reality

Perhaps this makes no sense to you because the idea of a rela physicla objectie god is jus tinconceivable to you In tha tcase it could well happen to you.

And of course i am god. But only in the same way that you are also god.

[+Paranoid Android]

Believers often state that they gained their belief through a spiritual experience so euphoric that it is beyond description but it led them to absolutely know the legitimacy of Jesus as the Savior of mankind.

Would it be acceptable to Christians if one said that they, too, had a spiritual experience directly from God, so inspiring that it could not be denied, telling them that the tenants of Christianity are false and that only He should be given worship?

I cannot say as I have had a "euphoric experience", but there have been several things that have happened in my life to prove to me that what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste is not all that exists. These experiences have led me to the inescapable position that a creator exists. Then as I looked into the concept, the Christian God made sense, and I made a leap of faith that the God that I know exists is the one described in the Bible.

I thus cannot say that I have had any divine revelation that the "Christian" God is true, only that I know that there is a creator being. I then have faith/trust that this creator is the one described in the Bible. And so far, everything I have explored into beliefs of God have confirmed the decision I made to put that trust in the Bible-God, but that is not a divine experience.

Thus to your question about other spiritual experiences, I cannot really answer. I don't accept that just because a Christian experiences Jesus that they are really having a divine experience, so why would it be different for anyone else? To use an example, I know of someone who thought that they had received a divine calling from God to go to Africa as a missionary. He pumped himself up to get ready, claiming that God wanted him to work over there - and two weeks after leaving on his mission he returned to Australia, saying that he couldn't handle it and this wasn't what God wanted afterall.

So if a Christian has a divine experience about Jesus but can be wrong, then any divine experience can be wrong! It doesn't mean they are wrong - I'm just saying that basing faith solely around "feelings" or "divine revelation" is a poor basis (in my opinion) since it can so easily be led astray. As I said, I have experienced things that shows me categorically that a creator DOES exist. I then take it on faith that this creator is the one described in the Bible, and so far that faith has not let me down.

Hope this helps with your question

~ Regards, PA

[IamsSon]

Strange that you should see it that way. By all logic, Christians would have the most to gain by disproving the experience. They would also have the most to lose if people started believing the experience to be true.

Actually, Christians would only gain from disproving this experience if they feared it. What I am trying to point out is that a Christian, someone who has an ongoing personal experience with God, who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit knows that any experience which presents a message which contradicts the truth of that Walk is not true. Why would I waste my time trying to disprove that 2+2=12?

[+Sherapy]

I cannot say as I have had a "euphoric experience", but there have been several things that have happened in my life to prove to me that what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste is not all that exists. These experiences have led me to the inescapable position that a creator exists. Then as I looked into the concept, the Christian God made sense, and I made a leap of faith that the God that I know exists is the one described in the Bible.

I thus cannot say that I have had any divine revelation that the "Christian" God is true, only that I know that there is a creator being. I then have faith/trust that this creator is the one described in the Bible. And so far, everything I have explored into beliefs of God have confirmed the decision I made to put that trust in the Bible-God, but that is not a divine experience.

Thus to your question about other spiritual experiences, I cannot really answer. I don't accept that just because a Christian experiences Jesus that they are really having a divine experience, so why would it be different for anyone else? To use an example, I know of someone who thought that they had received a divine calling from God to go to Africa as a missionary. He pumped himself up to get ready, claiming that God wanted him to work over there - and two weeks after leaving on his mission he returned to Australia, saying that he couldn't handle it and this wasn't what God wanted afterall.

So if a Christian has a divine experience about Jesus but can be wrong, then any divine experience can be wrong! It doesn't mean they are wrong - I'm just saying that basing faith solely around "feelings" or "divine revelation" is a poor basis (in my opinion) since it can so easily be led astray. As I said, I have experienced things that shows me categorically that a creator DOES exist. I then take it on faith that this creator is the one described in the Bible, and so far that faith has not let me down.

Hope this helps with your question

~ Regards, PA

Robbie, very well said.

I cannot say as I have had a "euphoric experience", but there have been several things that have happened in my life to prove to me that what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste is not all that exists. These experiences have led me to the inescapable position that a creator exists. Then as I looked into the concept, the Christian God made sense, and I made a leap of faith that the God that I know exists is the one described in the Bible.

I thus cannot say that I have had any divine revelation that the "Christian" God is true, only that I know that there is a creator being. I then have faith/trust that this creator is the one described in the Bible. And so far, everything I have explored into beliefs of God have confirmed the decision I made to put that trust in the Bible-God, but that is not a divine experience.

Thus to your question about other spiritual experiences, I cannot really answer. I don't accept that just because a Christian experiences Jesus that they are really having a divine experience, so why would it be different for anyone else? To use an example, I know of someone who thought that they had received a divine calling from God to go to Africa as a missionary. He pumped himself up to get ready, claiming that God wanted him to work over there - and two weeks after leaving on his mission he returned to Australia, saying that he couldn't handle it and this wasn't what God wanted afterall.

So if a Christian has a divine experience about Jesus but can be wrong, then any divine experience can be wrong! It doesn't mean they are wrong - I'm just saying that basing faith solely around "feelings" or "divine revelation" is a poor basis (in my opinion) since it can so easily be led astray. As I said, I have experienced things that shows me categorically that a creator DOES exist. I then take it on faith that this creator is the one described in the Bible, and so far that faith has not let me down.

Hope this helps with your question

~ Regards, PA

Robbie, very well said.

[=Jak=]

There is only two experience in everyone's life... one uplifting ur energy and the other grounding it... if u r not clear about this emotion... then u may name that as per ur experience..

[Dr. D]

What I can't seem to understand is why your being a smart ass with me, it seems to me like you get off on giving people a hard time or something? It wasn't that I was worshipping Mary and the Saints, it's just that I didn't feel comfortable praying " Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners.." and so on...or lighting candles with pictures of the Saint or "La Muerte" etc... That's all part of catholic dogma where I come from. Atleast in regards to my upbringing and culture and so forth. So yes, I felt it was sort of, misplaced veneration for basically false idols. Those are my own personal observations and conclusion. I actually consider myself open-minded but as for my beliefs, I will die a Jesus follower and that's that.

First of all, I was not being smart ass with you or anyone else. However it seems to you does not make it correct but it does make it a bit aggressive.

I was responding to your statement,

" I was raised catholic myself, but went over to Christianity basically only worship God and Jesus and not Mary and the Saints."

Now you claim that you weren't worshipping Mary and the Saints so you seem confused about what you were doing and so am I.

You quote from the rosary, however, especially, "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners.." using that as an example and referring to it as "praying." In reality, the Catholic protocol is that Mary serves as an intermediary and you are not praying to her but seeking her prayers in your behalf. It would not be possible to pray to Mary to ask her to pray for you. Catholics pray directly to God but mention Mary within the context of their prayer. The rosary also includes the Lord’s Prayer and the phrase “Glory be to the father and to the son and to the holy spirit. As it was in the beginning is now and always shall be, world without end.” Hardly the stuff that praying to Mary is made of.

I know of no Catholic ritual or ceremony that would include “la muerte.” Perhaps you can explain.

Whatever local practices they have in your area, Catholicism is defined by the higher authorities. In the Southern regions of Mexico Catholicism is not administered as required by Vatican procedures but that does not make it the norm for the religion. Whatever impressions you were given of your experiences with Catholicism, I respect as being yours but they are not representative of Catholicism as a whole.

I never suggested that you should alter your beliefs in any form. Incidentally, I am not Catholic.

[Dr. D]

Based on 40 years of living with "god" I suspect (well know really but many people would see that as too absolutist) that "my" god would not act one way and say something else. Hes too smart and has too much respect for my powers of logic.

The god i know is consistent. Crazily consistent sometimes( from my human perspective,) but always consistent. Thus he wouldnt act like the christian variant of god and then tell me the christian variant of god was false.

And i dont think hes particularly interested in the bible or testaments etc., other than as one way to live well. In other words, if the bible provides a guide to help me live better and more completely, then he would approve, but he models the behaviour and principles expected of me. It happens that at heart they match the core principles of the bible and of the koran and of the torah etc. It is not necessary to have a manual when god lives with you, but a manual is a legitimate tool when you are trying to come to terms with god via faith and reason.

I could write my own manual. Some might find it helpful, even; but basically i have concluded that the relationship between god and man is meant to be one on one, and unique to each individual. It has to be, when god lives both in the wider environment and physically with every individaul.

Writing a manual on how to worship god would be like writing a manual telling other people what nature is, and how best to; perceive observe and interact with it. Each of us has to find our own way to perceive and interact withthe natural and built world around us, yet nature(and the built environment ) is there and exactly the same around each of us.(if we are in the same time and place)

Think of it this way. The bible koran etc are generic manuals, using which you can learn to operate and drive a car. They may have been written by people who learned to drive using that model. But driving a mini is different to driving a porche. The principles and practices are the same but the specifications and performances, and appearances, may be very different

Ps i would debate that the old testament is considered more historically reliable, but ill leave that for another time.

I think a lot of non believers challenge the NT more, because they consider that it represents more of a "threat" to contemporary humanity.

I do not consider the bible to be the inerant word of god I suspect from my own expericnes it mightbe the revealed words of god as interpreted by mena nd women with an expereince of god. As i said i could write a book of gods teachings as revealed to me, but there is no guarantee they are inerrant, even when they work perfectly for me in my time and place.

I did not say that my experience came from your God, but could it be possible that it came from THE God?

[Dr. D]

When anyone disbelieves another's experiences because they have never had them, or because they fall outside of an established view of what is posible, that is natural. It is not necessarily right.

What would worry me would be if a non believer encountered god, and dismissed it as impossible, because of prexisting disbelief alone.

That is a very easy route to take, unless god persists.

But in this case many Christians, including you, have had such experiences and I am asking by what authority my experience would be any less valid?

[Donnie Darko]

From my point of view, from what I've seen with my own eyes, I believe praying or asking for prayers to/of Mary is a form of idol worship. I don't believe she is co-mediator, so naturally, I don't support any form of prayers directed towards her. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between man and God. I've seen people get on their knees in front of Mary statues, that really does happen wether you want to believe it or not. Maybe they do it for other reasons, but it still feels wrong to me.

This applies to the Saints and to "La Muerte" whom is basically thought to be the angel of death. It's widespread among Texas, California, Mexico and Latin America. If you haven't heard of it, perhaps you should do some research? I suppose it wouldn't be officially approved by The Pope and whatnot, but it's incorporated nevertheless. I really don't care to talk about the Vatican, as I see a whole lot of wrong there to begin with.

Anyway, I respect your views in any case. Be good.