Irreversible Corruption of the Church

[owf]

The "Church" is simply a refection of the rest of society.

[Imaginarynumber1]

The alternative is for God to create a "nanny state", where God intervenes before anyone can ever do anything that would harm another person. Want to get drunk? Sure, go ahead, do it as often as you like, because when your inhibitions are down and you get angry or decide to drive a car or your partner doesn't answer you quickly enough, God will stop you before you pull a punch on the guy at the bar or run over that innocent pedestrian or commit domestic violence while drunk. No consequences, heck, even the liver damage that the alcohol would cause, God is just going to miraculously heal you, so you don't even have to worry about that, just keep drinking and drinking...... that is the benevolent God you advocate SHOULD exist if it were benevolent.

I don't see what the problem with that is.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I don't see what the problem with that is.

Try raising a kid and not imposing restrictions, allow them to do anything they want without any consequences whatsoever. Then come back to me and tell me what the problem is. Imagine not just your children, but you and people since the dawn of time being given free reign to do what we want without consequence. Such an advanced species we would be...... *sarcasm* Edited May 9, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Imaginarynumber1]

Try raising a kid and not imposing restrictions, allow them to do anything they want without any consequences whatsoever. Then come back to me and tell me what the problem is. Imagine not just your children, but you and people since the dawn of time being given free reign to do what we want without consequence. Such an advanced species we would be...... *sarcasm*

Religion has not made us an advanced species. Culture has. And I would love to drink without repercussion.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Religion has not made us an advanced species. Culture has. And I would love to drink without repercussion.

I didn't say religion did. I too would love to drink without consequence. Again, not my point.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I didn't say religion did. I too would love to drink without consequence. Again, not my point.

So? It was my point. Everything doesn't have to be about YOU, PA.

Joking, of course. Or am I....

[+Link of Hyrule]

So? It was my point. Everything doesn't have to be about YOU, PA.

Joking, of course. Or am I....

My entire reason for posting in this thread was to address the claim that "free will" was just an excuse touted by apologists to explain the suffering that people inflict on one another. I added a hypothetical - ok, let's pretend that since the beginning of time there was a benevolent God who did intervene any and every time someone did something that would cause suffering on others. Where would we as a species be? I think perhaps we might be as innocent as the Eloi (Time Machine), sweet, utopian almost, but at the same complacent with where we are, no desire to think or change or better ourselves. Would we even have the drive to invent things like the internet that we have to even talk about this type of thing? Is this a life you would happily accept if you could trade free will for it? I wouldn't, I like my ability to think. If you (or Leo, since he began the question) are happy to trade your free will for zombie-like innocence, then that would be something to talk about, but speaking for myself, in light of this choice between innocence/ignorance and free will (and the associated suffering that comes therefrom) there is only one clear choice, and it might actually be more "benevolent" to allow the suffering and give freedom of choice rather than keep us in ignorance and free from suffering both.

I used drinking alcohol as one example of how a normal person might inflict harm on another person (or themselves), but it was just one example of many.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Imaginarynumber1]

My entire reason for posting in this thread was to address the claim that "free will" was just an excuse touted by apologists to explain the suffering that people inflict on one another. I added a hypothetical - ok, let's pretend that since the beginning of time there was a benevolent God who did intervene any and every time someone did something that would cause suffering on others. Where would we as a species be? I think perhaps we might be as innocent as the Eloi (Time Machine), sweet, utopian almost, but at the same complacent with where we are, no desire to think or change or better ourselves. Would we even have the drive to invent things like the internet that we have to even talk about this type of thing? Is this a life you would happily accept if you could trade free will for it? I wouldn't, I like my ability to think. If you (or Leo, since he began the question) are happy to trade your free will for zombie-like innocence, then that would be something to talk about, but speaking for myself, in light of this choice between innocence/ignorance and free will (and the associated suffering that comes therefrom) there is only one clear choice, and it might actually be more "benevolent" to allow the suffering and give freedom of choice rather than keep us in ignorance and free from suffering both.

I used drinking alcohol as one example of how a normal person might inflict harm on another person (or themselves), but it was just one example of many.

[+Link of Hyrule]

My browser (my laptop and my mobile, so it's across multiple devices) is just showing an icon and the phrase "posted image", I have no idea what you posted. Edited May 9, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[White Crane Feather]

See, I find the exact opposite. If one believes that they go to a magical land of unicorn farts when they die, it makes their sacrifices meaningless. You gave your life for someone? Eh, you're going to a better place, no sweat. You suffered for others? Eh, you'll achieve a reward later. Now, if there is no afterlife, those sacrifices become immensely relevant. If we only have one life to live, suffering and sacrifices take meaning because you gave something that you only have one of. A life sacrificed with the assumption of continuation is the same as a billionair giving money to a homeless man; it is still a good gesture, but it doesn't really hinder the billionaire because he already has many many monies. Sacrifice with no assumption of an afterlife is a Nepalese woman whose entire life was destroyed in the earthquake offering to share her meagre supplies with a reporter; she has nothing, but is willing to share what little she has. Her sacrifice has meaning while the billionaire's does not.

Considering there is no evidence towards the existence of any form of afterlife, I think it's pretty obvious which one has more value.

You are talking about the law of diminishing marginal utility. I'm afraid it just dosnt work that way. I belive in an afterlife, but this life is still one good. I don't want to give it up not at all. Nor to most others that beleive in an afterlife. From a logical perspective that means that they are two different products. And I'm sorry to say that in your version of what happens after you die, there is no meaning. Your dead, caput, worm food, outa here. The only meaning there is is left in the mind of those still alive. There is zero meaning for you. Fortunately it's not likely at all. There is tons and tons of evidence of an afterlife. Weather you want to accept it or not is up to you.

[Podo]

You are talking about the law of diminishing marginal utility. I'm afraid it just dosnt work that way. I belive in an afterlife, but this life is still one good. I don't want to give it up not at all. Nor to most others that beleive in an afterlife. From a logical perspective that means that they are two different products. And I'm sorry to say that in your version of what happens after you die, there is no meaning. Your dead, caput, worm food, outa here. The only meaning there is is left in the mind of those still alive. There is zero meaning for you. Fortunately it's not likely at all. There is tons and tons of evidence of an afterlife. Weather you want to accept it or not is up to you.

But I agree with you about meaning. I don't think there is any reason to think we're special, when we're dead we're dead. Done, worm food, rigor mortis, gone and finished. That we only have one life to live makes this life that much more valuable.

As for this supposed evidence for an afterlife, care to present something? I've never heard of it, nor do I find any after some Google-fu.

[White Crane Feather]

I struggled with WCF's crossing the street, free will analogy too, just as a parent. I think having free will is a responsibility and as parents we are obliged to do our best to teach our kids how to respect the fact that with free will comes accountability. For me, for my kids, and for gods too.

I think it is the way free will is filtered/understood and applied that makes the difference.

As a parent, I do not take the position there is nothing I can do to prevent evil in the world, as I might step on ones right to free will, I think it is a right that is earned. ( I say the constitution outlines this the best for me). I understand that I single handedly can't eradicate evil, but I can do some part depending on the situation. It adds up in the end. The goal/ standard is my kids are not free to get killed crossing the street if I can help it. I think, I can Do something with what I do or don't do as a parent. It really is the place I'd start.

Take harmful bullying we nurtured that as a culture by using parenting styles that helped perpetuate it, some religions taught us that [to] "spare the rod was to spoil the child" our cultural idioms supported it by rationalizing it away, excusing it with reasons, such as, " being bullied is good for you, it's a rite of passage."

Now a days this has a changed, what changed? What changed is for one we actually see and hear the harmful effects of bullying, and I think more compassion in parenting, better understandings of kids and their development. More knowledge about violence. And there has been a movement to address using violence to discipline kids, we have asked ourselves are we really okay with harming kids as the status quo, is this really our best, are we really powerless, can we do something, can we reevaluate and find a better strategy in our parenting and the answer is, yes! The reality is it sucks for the kid being bullied, so we began asking how can we change this?

Sharon, you make the best point of all when you point out that when we do not see a situation or our part in it, for what it actaully is, we thwart/impede our ability to change it. When we settle for things like with "free will comes evil" and "God can do want he wants," I think we are doing nothing more then expressing our powerlessness to effect any kind of change.

People stopped saying and acting as if there is nothing we can do about bullies, there sure is things to do if enough of us try things and do our part, helpful things too, things that actually do work. if we get on board towards a common goal.there are so many things to do now. Well that is what has happened, and eventually this will change. I know of a few schools that have an anti bullying climate, the school demands it. They have mission statements that they expect kids to adhere too. This will only grow.

You are thinking to hard about it sherapy. It's just an analogy. This is a metaphysical/philosiphical question. A creator God that always intervenes on the behalf of those suffering basically destroys the universe and all that is good in it. It's not a matter of responsibility, kindness, or other sentiments. God simply can't have it both ways, and yes Almighty white crane feather is putting a logical limit on God. But I'm not alone, even saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that even God is not above natural law. It's like reality is a painting. Art must have contrast. If There is an author to reality, then it is stuck with certain logical must haves. You cannot have a hero without somone to rescue. You cannot have compassion without somone to have compassion for. You cannot be a good mother without the risk of something to be good against. It's the dualistic law of the universe. Even matter itself comes in positive and negative forms and is contrasted against space. People want to blame God for suffering ....or more like people that don't beleive there is a god construct a moral straw man that is easy to knock down. If one is going to construct this particular straw man, then you must assume there is God for the sake of the argument. Once you do this logically you must consider that not even God could have done it any other way. Duality is so vitally necessary for any kind of real life or existance to even exist. Without it we are literally nothing. God is either the genius of all geniuses or it's simply something that even God cannot curcumvent. If God is real, even it's own existance is at stake.

[White Crane Feather]

But I agree with you about meaning. I don't think there is any reason to think we're special, when we're dead we're dead. Done, worm food, rigor mortis, gone and finished. That we only have one life to live makes this life that much more valuable.

As for this supposed evidence for an afterlife, care to present something? I've never heard of it, nor do I find any after some Google-fu.

I'd rather not off shoot this into a rehashed NDE discussion. You can look up the plethora of arguments I have made in this area over the last few years, or start a new thread and I will participate. I don't feel up to shreading apart and debunking the dying brain hypothesis yet again on a non NDE or OBE thread, but I'm willing to somwhere else so we can stay on topic.

But that's just it. It dosnt matter what we think. It's what is that counts. I understand that thinking you only have one life forces you to value every moment. Like I mentioned before this is the law of diminishing marginal utility. Or in this case you say it backwards the law of increasing marginal utility. It's a very powerful concept for conscious beings with lots of ramifications and philisophical musings.

The truth of the matter however though is that there is only one very very unlikely scenerio that this is the only life you have. There are only a few choice. 1) there is some sort of spiritual reality where we have imortal souls 2) only one universe has ever existed and it will die a heat death and no more will ever tunnel into existance. 3) there are infinite multiverses stretching accross proper time and space 4) there is a creator God that the created you and will let you die into non existance if you don't listen.

I'm going to start with 2. It's basically nearly impossible. Quantum mechanics tells us that if there is no universe there will eventually be one. After this universe suffers heat death there will be another and another and another add infinitum and there are just as many that where before. Which brings me to 3. Given what we know about the way reality works, three is highly likely. The problem with three is that in a deterministic universe there are only so many ways to arrange matter befoee it repeats itself. What does this mean? It means you will and have lived this life many times and never really die. In fact your life is a universal constant. 4 is a possibility. Though scary. You see I can also demonstrate that in all likelyhood this reality is a creation. I can't give you the nature of the creator though. It might be a pimply kid in a garage somwhere. But It cannot be denied.

Now 1 3 and 4 can coincide and are not mutually exclusive. 2 excludes all of them. Now there is a 5. 5 is three but there are limits to nature that do not allow evolution to proceed past a certain point; but that is a terribly unlikely restriction to place upon infinity. We are really left with the high probability that this life is not all there is. It's entirely possible that we live it over and over again, but it's also possible there is a deeper reality. Either way it's unlikely we are only worm food. The universe will resurrect us eventually even if it's already been done

[+Sherapy]

You are thinking to hard about it sherapy. It's just an analogy. This is a metaphysical/philosiphical question. A creator God that always intervenes on the behalf of those suffering basically destroys the universe and all that is good in it. It's not a matter of responsibility, kindness, or other sentiments. God simply can't have it both ways, and yes Almighty white crane feather is putting a logical limit on God. But I'm not alone, even saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that even God is not above natural law. It's like reality is a painting. Art must have contrast. If There is an author to reality, then it is stuck with certain logical must haves. You cannot have a hero without somone to rescue. You cannot have compassion without somone to have compassion for. You cannot be a good mother without the risk of something to be good against. It's the dualistic law of the universe. Even matter itself comes in positive and negative forms and is contrasted against space. People want to blame God for suffering ....or more like people that don't beleive there is a god construct a moral straw man that is easy to knock down. If one is going to construct this particular straw man, then you must assume there is God for the sake of the argument. Once you do this logically you must consider that not even God could have done it any other way. Duality is so vitally necessary for any kind of real life or existance to even exist. Without it we are literally nothing. God is either the genius of all geniuses or it's simply something that even God cannot curcumvent. If God is real, even it's own existance is at stake.

I think you are being asked for your reasoning, at least this is my interest. And thank you for taking the time to respond.

WCF for me, a hero is a person who is determined to live their life In a way that rises to challenges, it's a mindset and these people are ordinary, commonplace, and often choose to go unnoticed, they don't need to save anyone to be a hero, although they might.

Let's looks at compassion,

http://www.news.wisc.edu/9498

"There's one stimulus that's universally positive: baby faces," says Nitschke. "Just looking at them gets most people, particularly new moms, feeling all warm and happy."

Testing the relationship between babies and positive emotion, the researchers invited six mothers and their infants to the laboratory. The researchers snapped up to 150 pictures of each baby, between the ages of 3 to 5 months. About six weeks later, the mothers, none of whom suffered from postpartum depression, returned to the lab.

This time, the mothers were shown photos of the happy faces of their babies, other people's babies, adult acquaintances and adult strangers. The women looked at these photos during a series of brain scans. The scans, or functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI), captured activity in the mothers' brains.

While in the scanners, the mothers also rated their moods on a nine-point scale based on five feelings: happy, warm, loving, motherly and excited.

The mothers, when seeing pictures of their own babies compared to seeing someone else's baby or no image at all, showed greater activity in the orbitofrontal cortex - a brain region in the lower part of the frontal lobe that's involved in decoding the emotional value of a stimulus, such as whether it is a form of reward or punishment. The activity in this brain region was equally strong in both hemispheres."

Clearly, a mother has to do nothing more then look at her baby to evoke feelings of compassion.

How about this, "One of the more interesting findings, notes Nitschke, is that the mothers' mood ratings corresponded to changes in the brain. For example, the more a mom said she was happy, the more activity there was in both orbitofrontal areas."

A mom will get happier just by saying she is happy. One doesnt have to assume or need a god to have the experiences that you are claiming. The ideology is unnessecary for some. With that being said if a person prefers to have a god in their life that is fine too. When it comes to beliefs each to their own. (I get the impression you are seeking your path, that you are not sure yet).There are going to be people who cannot wrap their head around the God that allows suffering. Personally, I think it is a good question to ask and I appreciate you sharing your reasoning on the matter.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Sherapy

[Leonardo]

The alternative is for God to create a "nanny state", where God intervenes before anyone can ever do anything that would harm another person. Want to get drunk? Sure, go ahead, do it as often as you like, because when your inhibitions are down and you get angry or decide to drive a car or your partner doesn't answer you quickly enough, God will stop you before you pull a punch on the guy at the bar or run over that innocent pedestrian or commit domestic violence while drunk. No consequences, heck, even the liver damage that the alcohol would cause, God is just going to miraculously heal you, so you don't even have to worry about that, just keep drinking and drinking...... that is the benevolent God you advocate SHOULD exist if it were benevolent.

And that's just one example, alcohol is not the only thing that causes harm. You are advocating the complete stripping of free will and putting it in opposition to apologetics. As a non-believer, I'm assuming you don't want God to turn you into a zombie who blindly believes in God? That's your alternative if we're talking a benevolent God as you describe it. The upshot is, of course, that were this to happen you wouldn't have the will to say "why are you forcing me to believe", you'd simply believe regardless. But since you don't believe, I'm assuming you are glad that God hasn't forced his "benevolence" onto you.

My point, PA, is that such a God cannot be a 'healer'. It cannot be 'benevolent'. At best it is apathetic to suffering.

[+Link of Hyrule]

My point, PA, is that such a God cannot be a 'healer'. It cannot be 'benevolent'. At best it is apathetic to suffering.

It's a false dichotomy. Either God makes us like the Wells-esque Eloi or he's apathetic to suffering. I reckon I could make a compelling case that a benevolent God would NOT intervene in order to facilitate a species that grows rather than a blissful Nirvana where we live but never grow.

[Leonardo]

It's a false dichotomy. Either God makes us like the Wells-esque Eloi or he's apathetic to suffering. I reckon I could make a compelling case that a benevolent God would NOT intervene in order to facilitate a species that grows rather than a blissful Nirvana where we live but never grow.

I have a hint of a feeling you would 'intervene' if you were witness to the sort of suffering being discussed, PA. The reason for your doing so would be a little thing called empathy, and you would also understand that your intervention wouldn't result in the 'stagnation' of the psychological growth of the person on behalf of whom you intervened.

A non-interventionist deity would seem to have no empathy with humans, and so why would such an entity be referred to as 'benevolent'?

[+Link of Hyrule]

I have a hint of a feeling you would 'intervene' if you were witness to the sort of suffering being discussed, PA. The reason for your doing so would be a little thing called empathy, and you would also understand that your intervention wouldn't result in the 'stagnation' of the psychological growth of the person on behalf of whom you intervened.

A non-interventionist deity would seem to have no empathy with humans, and so why would such an entity be referred to as 'benevolent'?

I, however, am not God. What I would do doesn't mean that God should do the same thing I would want it to do if I were in his position.

[Leonardo]

I, however, am not God. What I would do doesn't mean that God should do the same thing I would want it to do if I were in his position.

No, you are not - yet Christianity ascribes to God human-like qualities such as 'benevolence', implying empathy. If God is so human-like then we are not wrong to suppose God would behave as a human would behave.

If you wish to argue that God does not behave as a human would, then you are arguing God is not human-like and so your argument for God's 'benevolence' rings hollow.

[+Link of Hyrule]

No, you are not - yet Christianity ascribes to God human-like qualities such as 'benevolence', implying empathy. If God is so human-like then we are not wrong to suppose God would behave as a human would behave.

If you wish to argue that God does not behave as a human would, then you are arguing God is not human-like and so your argument for God's 'benevolence' rings hollow.

Considering it is man who is made in God's image (per Christian belief) then perhaps it is rather not the case that God has "human-like" qualities, but rather that humans possess "god-like" qualities. And while we humans can feel these emotions to some degree, we aren't God and therefore can't fully understand or realise the full meaning of these qualities.

As I said, I reckon (if required) I could make a compelling argument that keeping us from all harm and stunting our growth would be more detrimental (read "less benevolent") than allowing harm and therefore allowing growth (the whole "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger").

[Leonardo]

Considering it is man who is made in God's image (per Christian belief) then perhaps it is rather not the case that God has "human-like" qualities, but rather that humans possess "god-like" qualities. And while we humans can feel these emotions to some degree, we aren't God and therefore can't fully understand or realise the full meaning of these qualities.

As I said, I reckon (if required) I could make a compelling argument that keeping us from all harm and stunting our growth would be more detrimental (read "less benevolent") than allowing harm and therefore allowing growth (the whole "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger").

Depends on what severity of 'harm' we are talking about, PA. If it's the 'harm' that comes from, say, rejection of affection offered then such an argument as you propose could reasonably be made - but what about the 'harm' that results from child-abuse or rape? What 'reasonable argument' could be made to allow this sort of harm for the purpose of 'facilitating growth'?

Edited May 9, 2015 by Leonardo

[+Link of Hyrule]

Depends on what severity of 'harm' we are talking about, PA. If it's the 'harm' that comes from, say, rejection of affection offered then such an argument as you propose could reasonably be made - but what about the 'harm' that results from child-abuse or rape? What 'reasonable argument' could be made to allow this sort of harm for the purpose of 'facilitating growth'?

If the harm of child-abuse/rape was removed entirely, how long would it be before humans aren't even aware of the concept of child-abuse/rape, and begin to ask God "what about the injustice against these other crimes"?..... In modern thinking child abuse is the worst, but remove that then what is the "worst" crime, and our standards will change to reflect that as the worst. Remove these new worst crimes, and how long is it before humans ask God "what about these other injustices"? Ad infinitum until no injustices remain and we are left in the same Wells'ian future of The Time Machine.

That said, rejection of affection, depending on the context, is still a form of child abuse. Just so ya know

~ PA

[Leonardo]

If the harm of child-abuse/rape was removed entirely, how long would it be before humans aren't even aware of the concept of child-abuse/rape...

~ PA

I would venture never, so long as we retained the capacity for comprehending knowledge inherited from previous discoveries. Our understanding of the consequences of such abuse is fairly comprehensive and well-documented. So long as people can study this knowledge that understanding will never disappear.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I would venture never, so long as we retained the capacity for comprehending knowledge inherited from previous discoveries. Our understanding of the consequences of such abuse is fairly comprehensive and well-documented. So long as people can study this knowledge that understanding will never disappear.

So are you advocating that if a benevolent God exists, it could/should have let such abuse happen for *literally* millennia, then when humans evolved enough to understand the harm of child abuse (not that long ago, I might add) and then document the effects to the point that we scientifically know the effects... and only then stop it from happening, then hoping that a hundred years later (when no eye-witness was left, and only written evidence of the horror exists) the human race still believes what was written a hundred years ago? Edited May 9, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[White Crane Feather]

I think you are being asked for your reasoning, at least this is my interest. And thank you for taking the time to respond.

WCF for me, a hero is a person who is determined to live their life In a way that rises to challenges, it's a mindset and these people are ordinary, commonplace, and often choose to go unnoticed, they don't need to save anyone to be a hero, although they might.

Let's looks at compassion,

http://www.news.wisc.edu/9498

"There's one stimulus that's universally positive: baby faces," says Nitschke. "Just looking at them gets most people, particularly new moms, feeling all warm and happy."

Testing the relationship between babies and positive emotion, the researchers invited six mothers and their infants to the laboratory. The researchers snapped up to 150 pictures of each baby, between the ages of 3 to 5 months. About six weeks later, the mothers, none of whom suffered from postpartum depression, returned to the lab.

This time, the mothers were shown photos of the happy faces of their babies, other people's babies, adult acquaintances and adult strangers. The women looked at these photos during a series of brain scans. The scans, or functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI), captured activity in the mothers' brains.

While in the scanners, the mothers also rated their moods on a nine-point scale based on five feelings: happy, warm, loving, motherly and excited.

The mothers, when seeing pictures of their own babies compared to seeing someone else's baby or no image at all, showed greater activity in the orbitofrontal cortex - a brain region in the lower part of the frontal lobe that's involved in decoding the emotional value of a stimulus, such as whether it is a form of reward or punishment. The activity in this brain region was equally strong in both hemispheres."

Clearly, a mother has to do nothing more then look at her baby to evoke feelings of compassion.

How about this, "One of the more interesting findings, notes Nitschke, is that the mothers' mood ratings corresponded to changes in the brain. For example, the more a mom said she was happy, the more activity there was in both orbitofrontal areas."

A mom will get happier just by saying she is happy. One doesnt have to assume or need a god to have the experiences that you are claiming. The ideology is unnessecary for some. With that being said if a person prefers to have a god in their life that is fine too. When it comes to beliefs each to their own. (I get the impression you are seeking your path, that you are not sure yet).There are going to be people who cannot wrap their head around the God that allows suffering. Personally, I think it is a good question to ask and I appreciate you sharing your reasoning on the matter.

Certainly it's a good question. He is not much of a sky daddy if he is not a dad. I get it. But even though I have used the parent analogy, we are not talking about a human father are we. We are talking about the author of reality.

I personally don't think God is a creator God, though I can't put creation past her. For some this no longer qualifies as God. I'm with the universal mother crowd. The intelligent collective consciousness of everything. God did not need to create existance she exists alongside if it symutaniousy being it. But that dosnt mean that I ignore evidence of creation and there is smoking gun evidence right in front of us and about to be prooven with a new peice of technology.

I'm not looking for my path anymore sherapy, I have found it. And it's not a path. I debate for stimulation and fun. I spend nearly 100% of my time with children litterally from sun up to sun down. UM is pretty much my only serious adult interaction. And it's not even a real interaction.

Edited May 9, 2015 by White Crane Feather