Death of a God

I have been thinking about something for a while... sort of mentioned it in another thread but didn't really formalise it.


In the bible it says that Jesus died for our sins... That God sent his "only son" down to earth where he died so that we can be saved.


Firstly I find myself asking if someone that is the son of God can/could actually die in the first place... Being the "son of God" meant he was already "born" before he ever entered the world... and due to being "raised" he was alive after "dying".

This would then lead to the understanding that it was simply Jesus' human form that was born on earth and died for our sins.



So here is the big question....


If you are the Son of God... and you have been around for countless ages in heaven, and you went to earth for a brief visit... stayed 33 years, got knocked off and then happily waltzed back into heaven...

Was it really that much of a sacrifice in the first place?

It would be like me saying "I shall send my only toe nail to be cut from my body and die to save you all... Lets worship my toe nail"


Considering God knows everything that will happen he knew his son wouldn't be truely dead and so sending him wasn't even a sacrifice at all...


Does someone have an explaination for this that actually stands up to some sort of logic and isn't filled with pre-recorded, religious, indoctrinated, brain-washed wordage?

Not really. The way you put it, it does seem kind of ridiculous.

I have thought of that before too gen..but there is so many barin washed people they would consider me "a sinner" for independent thinking.

Also if jesus was god's only son why in the world would GOD send his only son down her to this hell..also knowing that his only son would be killed?It just doesnt make sense

Whenever i think about this stuff i always come up with the same conclusion..."there's something fishy about this religion stuff"

And the ever-so famous quote that every religous freak tells me "Jesus died for YOUR sins" haha he did? I didnt ask for him to die nor was i even alive during his time.

And those preachers that say this during there preach.
GOD IS ANGRY!!! HE IS UPSET AND WANTS RETREBUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

why??? why is god mad?? and how do they know god is mad?? did they have a conversation on the phone with god the night before??

I mean how ignorant do you have to be to belive that crap????????????!!!!!!!!!!

heheh and also...if i go and kill someone in gods name and have a entire religion behind me is it wrong then?
Do i still go to prison like every killer?
Then if i get executed i will be a martyer anyways..so i will be forever known as a good person?then how does that make the religion itself look?

WHO IN THE WORLD KNOWS!!!!!!!!

1)Born Once, Die Twice
2)Born Twice, Die Once
3)Begotten versus Born

But you have nothing to be concerned about if this is all only a scam.

I pondered these questions as well:
How can an infinite penalty be paid (by Jesus) in a finite time?
Is it an infinite penalty?

I'm not convinced that it is an infinite penalty (hell). There are things we can know (or begin to grasp) about an infinite God (assuming "He" is so) using our finite knowledge and finite minds; for instance, "math functions that diverge to infinity faster than others". This is what led me to believe (when I was younger) that an infinite hell penalty could be paid in a finite time (by an infinite God). Implying that an infinite penalty is possible.

Although I don't "know" the answer (or proof), my current belief (from the evidence I've examined) is that it is a finite penalty, but degrees of finite penalty can be rough. How long was that last painfull dental appointment, or anticipation for an exam? How intense and long will be the penalty if you are wrong? A millenia is kinda long (but at least not eternity).

The "Joy" comes from trust in God, not fear of penalty. That can be a tough one, but for that, read "Job".

Another tough study: "The Fear of The Lord".

By the way, the initial thread post touches on Will versus Free Will and why I believe we don't truly have Free Will; or consider Local Chaos versus Global Order.

http://bible.com

[Edited by VirtuallyVB on 08-11-2000 at 06:23 PM]

I don't think you can make a fair comparison between clipping a toenail and dragging your own cross up a hill, then having your hands and feet nailed to it and left there in agony in baking sun for days, until your muscles eventually have no energy and collapse, suffocating you. I would say that one was a little more of a sacrifice than the other.

Probably not the nicest way to go.

Sophtware: Christians believe that God sent his only son down to the world so that he would be killed. It was Jesus dying for the people of the world that made the difference. My analysis is probably flawed, but from my atheistic position, that's what it seems like.

I remember watching this episode of star trek the next generation and it was about a planet that had a visit from there own god once a year and the people of the planet beleieved it was there god with no question what so ever,
When it actually turned out to be another race with greater technology that would send a member of there own crew down to the surface of the planet and the person would be transformed into the image of that civilizations god.

And the people of the planet were so convinced that this person was there god that they didnt want to accept the fact that he wasnt.

We dont know for sure..this might have actually happend here 2000 years ago. Back then nobody had any comprehension of television or radion or anything that we all take advantage of today.


I dont know i guess i watched too much sci-fi when i was younger..

There was hymn left out of Psalms which the wives of the two robbers (who they knew would not come back) asked Mary (the so-called prostitute virgin) to 'spare a tear for them'.

VirtuallyVB
That didn't really answer the question.

What then was the actual penalty?

What exactly did the Son of God, who sits next to him for all eternity in heaven actually suffer as a result of being returned to heaven?

Harry

For a God, who has been around for 2000 years, having to drag a cross up a hill under the conditions you mentioned would be less than 0.00001% of my total experience as a being... considering the insignificance of that event in the overall span of my existance I would say its like clipping off a toenail.

You couldn't actually say it was "hurting" him... after all, he wasn't even bothered by the nails, you never read in the bible how Jesus went "Ouch! Ouch! This hurts!!!", it was more about him not wanting to have to go through with it.


So I would ask you Harry.... What was it he actually Sacrificed???

[Note: Sacrifice indicates the giving up of something you will never, EVER have again... if you get it back then it wasn't really sacrificed]

Taking sacrifice literally, I'd say that Jesus probably did bugger-all then. In the words of Rimmer:

Quote:

---

...elbowed the guy on the left, mule-kicked the guy on the right; and been over that green hill and far away before you could say 'Pontious Pilate'!

---

It's about "The Second Death".

When I was younger, I thought; surely others have died a more cruel (first) death than crucifixion. Even if not, others have been crucified. So why should I be impressed with Jesus' death? (Although I didn't use the term "first" to prefix "death").

The Second Death is a spiritual death according to the bible. "The wages of sin is death" (and the popular Christian belief is the second death). Adam didn't immediately "surely die in the 'day' that he ate of it" when he ate the apple. (reminds me to check the Hebrew word 'day' there--should be an epoch thing). Was his "surely die" the fact that his lifetime was limited to near 1000 years? Was it a (first/physical) death? Is Adam in (or going to) hell? BTW, I suppose I can't really speak for "popular Christian belief" although I'm about to use that phrase again...Popular Christian belief is that hell doesn't exist in time/space yet. I'm open for attack on that usage. :P)

I don't know if it is an eternal suffering which is viewed as this spiritual death or a non-existence thing which means that there is no eternal suffering. But I believe there is a type of spiritual suffering. If it is death of the spirit, then it sounds finite. But my point is that a short period of time can be quite intense. I tend to believe that it is a finite period or why shouldn't hell exist now? (What's a few more millenia?) And then is this a mercifull God punishing for eternity, the actions committed during this finite existance? So again, I tend to believe it is finite suffering (although our minds can grasp infinite series diverging faster to infinity than another series diverging to infinity--regarding degrees of infinite hell or Jesus suffering an eternity in that finite time before His resurrection).

This point has also been mentioned in another thread (I think the "What happens in the end?" thread).

You do recall that ST:NG episode where Picard lived a life-time while out for about 30 minutes on the bridge, don't you? That was Sci-Fi. I didn't post in that other thread, but I believe that sleep cycles on average every 45 minutes. I'm sure you had a nightmare or other dream that seemed to last a lot longer.

So, my belief is that in the finite time between Jesus suffering his physical death and being resurrected, he paid the penalty of every soul that He came to save. In a gospel, says Jesus "Of the ones the Father gave, I lost none". Embedded in this is a belief that He did NOT die the second death for everyone (or that would be a double-jeopardy) type situation-(If so, then no-one should be penalized). But as an engineer will design a car knowing full well that this particular one's only existence will be to crash test the design, some people are created for destruction (which I tend to believe is finite). There are verses in Romans about vessels created for destruction and before some twins were born, He says, "Jacob I Loved, Essau I Hated".

It's also about trust and reliance upon a Creator of at least an "order of magnitude" more powerfull than you.

But we don't come to the same conclusion given the same evidence. What I am impressed with is that the same evidence will tend to polarize our beliefs even more.

So, in that case, your total experience is actually 10 million times the experience (if youcould quantise experiece) of Jesus whilst being crucified. That's very interesting. I don't know how long it took, it might be written somewhere, but I'm guessing it took at least 3 days for him to die. That means that you have had experience equivalent to over 82,000 years of constant crucifiction.

I don't know where you got that definition of sacrifice either, but you seem to be pretty darned certain of it with all those evers. If you actually bothered to find out what it was you'd find this - "Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim"

Sacrifice is primarily related to the concept of loss, so I can see it is confusing to tell how death is a sacrifice if resurrection is imminent. I would consider there to be sacrifice in being crucified however.

You should know by now, but I'm pointing it out anyway just in case, that I am playing Devil's Advocate here.

VVB

Considering everything you said above... when then did Jesus actually sacrifice?

There was a lot of content to your writing but I couldn't specifically place anywhere in there it actually indicated what was lost in him doing that.

Perhaps if you worded it like :

"Jesus sacrificed his XXXXX for us"


If someone said I had to suffer one night of terrible dreams but would continue to live for the rest of eternity in a place of paradice without actually having lost anything in the process... I wouldn't consider it much of a sacrifice at all.

Ahh ... but the sacrifice he made was more than just the death of his mortal form. In fact, a great part of his sacrifice was being incarnated into a mortal form. He gave up his perfect form to become wholly human. The death and suffering on the cross was not the only penalty he had that day. While on the cross he also took the sins of the world upon him. The sins were so great that his father could no longer bear to look at him, and turned his back on him.

Quote:

---

"My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?"

---

So in effect he gave up his Godhood for us. He made the choice to give it up and come to earth to suffer for us. For this sacrifice he was raised up to heaven where he has inherited the same rewards that are available to all.

CthuluDragon

Quote:

---

Ahh ... but the sacrifice he made was more than just the death of his mortal form. In fact, a great part of his sacrifice was being incarnated into a mortal form. He gave up his perfect form to become wholly human

---

But they don't say "He lived for our sins" they say he "He died for our sins"... That contradicts what you are saying above.

Quote:

---

While on the cross he also took the sins of the world upon him. The sins were so great that his father could no longer bear to look at him, and turned his back on him.

So in effect he gave up his Godhood for us. He made the choice to give it up and come to earth to suffer for us

---

And yet he was raised to heaven and his father looked at him all the time... So was it actually a "sacrifice"... after all he got back what he lost.

I don't doubt there was "suffering"... but there certainly wasn't sacrifice when you get back everything you supposedly gave up

Jesus is also "The Lamb Slain BEFORE the Foundations of the Earth". What I would call a higher "harmonic" of your "fundamental harmonic" that you are questioning. I'm sure therein lies information that His life was also quite significant and the harmony of the plan.

I wasn't going to get into the "emptying His glory to become man" which is very significant, but I was going to stress His relationship.

The way I see it:
Sin is a falling short of the glory of God.
The wages of sin is death.
Sin separates us from God.
When sinless Jesus takes on our sin, He is separated from God until the penalty of sin is paid. How this is paid in a finite time has been what I was writing about above (whether finite or infinite payment, both seem possible for an infinite God anyway, by our puny grasp of infinite series and convergence/divergence. Although currently, I tend to believe that it is a finite "suffering" penalty and then non-existence).
Jesus, who always had an intimate relationship with God probably suffered more by losing this relationship "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?"

Quote:

---

Perhaps if you worded it like :
"Jesus sacrificed his XXXXX for us"

---

Jesus sacrificed his relationship with God for us.

I appreciate your point: Knowing the end from the beginning, doesn't Jesus know that He will succeed in this task and be reunited with God? Is this really a sacrifice?

I suppose this will be another disagreement, but to integrate your past example of when is something a first time:
If a parent is separated from his child (say at birth), only to be reunited with his child at some time in the future (even while knowing that they will be reunited), do you maintain that there is no sacrifice or suffering? After all, you have said, "It might as well be the first time when they meet in the future after such a long time has past".
I am not trying to twist your words, but I am trying to show the "reasoning" which follows from what you have argued.

I just read your reply to "Iain's Perfect God Paradox" and thought I'd edit this post to add these italics: Your "let's see how they TWIST things" comments are getting OLD. People are offering their point of view (which you have to admit sometimes are new to you). I thank you for showing me the "VB Codes". Instead of your "TWIST THINGS" comment, why don't you thank these people for offering their view and stop the antagonism? Or do neither. All parties may learn something.

The best part is that not only were our sins paid for, but His righteousness was imputed upon us, and we can have the intimate relationship with the Creator of this marvelous universe. "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard the wonders that are in store" or some such. I like to think of the best I can imagine, then God must out-do that to be true to this promise.

[Edited by VirtuallyVB on 08-14-2000 at 10:58 PM]

Ignoring what if anything he sacrificed, what the message here seems to be is that Jesus is the guy who takes the flack for all of us (very nice of him, remind me to thank him if he pops down for another visit) If he died to pay for our sins doesn't this mean that whatever we do we won't pay for them because Jesus has already paid for them.

I have heard it said to me that Jesus died for "My" sins, so doesnt this garentee me a place in heaven whatever I do?

As in double jeopardy, for a potentially chilling answer.

VirtuallyVB

Some good points and I agree with you on the structure of what you have said.

One thing that is different though is the past and present tense. While it would be considered an existing sacrifice for a person who was seperated at birth who has not YET been reunited, the case we are discussing is something that both happened and was returned to normal all before we speak now.

This means that while it "was" a sacrifice at the time it was done... it certainly isn't now.

To also say that the sacrifice was made for ME (as in personal ME.. not just people "like" me) when I was not even born again suggests that it was not truely a sacrifice.

If I were to say I shall die now for every single person that will ever live on the face of the earth I would be just using an event that was already going to happen to attempt to generate additional leverage by attempting to include that which is not includable.


The other interesting point you noted was that without the sacrifice of Jesus we wouldn't have the intimate relationship with God.... So that would indicate to me that God created mankind WITHOUT that intimate relationship in the first place. Is it any wonder then why his "children" strayed when it could be seen as abandonment? No wonder Adam and Eve did wrong by God if they were never given the close relationship until Jesus came down and fixed up all his mistakes.


I think this is just another one of those pieces of "evidence" that sums up to show the Christian Bible version of God simply contradicts itself (or just doesn't fit).

Of course theologists (perhaps including yourself) will try to "adjust" the way it can be perceived in order to try and fit it into your existing belief... but it certainly doesn't fit that way naturally :)

In my humble opinion anyway

I interpret the bible to say that those saved before Jesus' physical death look forward to that time; those saved after look backward to that time.

I don't see your point since "It is finished", said Jesus. Yes, it was in the past from our point of view. I don't see why that is relevant. If you pay your tuition before the end of the term (as in the beginning of the term) it means it is paid now (the "now" before the next term). You may be touching on another point that "the saved are saints now"--Catholics would only say they are only saints after they are dead. Paul addresses letters to "the saints".

Also, I think you missed my point in my lengthy post (as Sam did) that the sacrifice was not for everyone. This is disputed among us claiming or hoping to be Christians, so you have to find your own belief of the evidence.

The bible says that Adam and Eve spoke to God. If we were to do that today, that would be pretty intimate. Just because Jesus' pre-human form was even more intimate with God stresses the sacrifice of becoming human.

Thanks for the "adjustment".

Quote:

---

I interpret the bible to say ...

---

Exactly... Don't you find Interpretations always lend themselves towards the pre-disposed belief you have?

I am sure you could say the same of me... that I see evidence and I "interpret" it to mean the opposite of what you do... I guess the only difference is that I do not believe one way or the other, I believe in only that which is logical, reasonable and sensical and using that as my basis for interpretation I get the same answer.

Quote:

---

Also, I think you missed my point in my lengthy post (as Sam did) that the sacrifice was not for everyone

---

Then you certainly differ from most of a similar belief as yourself... Its good to see you can actually dispute certain facts and "interpretations" ;)

Quote:

---

God stresses the sacrifice of becoming human

---

But Jesus did not "become" human... He simply wore a suit for 33 years and then took it off and returned to the same place he started.

Tadpoles "become" frogs... it usually implies a transition that does not reverse itself...

Imagine if I said I "became" a believer and then "become" a non-believer and then "became" a believer again... Some would question if I actually "became" anything considering it didn't last a long time... and 33 years out of an eternity isn't a long time.

Having said all that... God certainly doesn't have a clue what its like to live in our shoes and walk the earth as a human... he would have to BE human to do so regardless of how much vaunted omnipotence he has and that is something he is just incapable of doing yet seems to feel he still knows what is best for us even though he is so far removed (both physically and intimately if we believe what you are saying about JC).

Since we seem to be talking a lot about JC in this thread, I'd like to ask the following question:

Something that I was told throughout my catholic schooling was that JC was the "Son" of God. As children, we just all accepted this, imaginging God as a father figure with JC as His Son. But what does it mean exactly to be the "Son" of a God. How can God have a Son? Even if we allow for some lateral interpretation in the term "Son" it seems unlikely that a God would have a second "God" at his side. What about the term "only" Son. Surely if God was able to bring into existance a 'child' God being, he would be able to bring into existence as many as He wanted.

These are issues which I never received a satisfactory explanation for. Invariably the explanations offered rely on a lot of hand waving. This was one of the contributing factor to me reconsidering my beliefs.

I'd appreciate anyone's answers to these questions.

dvst8

I think this is roughly what I was told in RE.

Jesus was the Son of god in that Maty was his mother, in the same way children inherit things from their father and things from their mother Jesus inherited his fathers perfection and his mothers human form, this is why mary was chosen as she had never sinned and could not ruin this perfection.

With respect to sitting up their in heaven the Idea of the trinity is introduced to get round the problem that if god had a son there would be more than one god.

You can imagine the trinity as a triangle, one side is god the Father, one side is god the son and one side is the holy spirit, they are all different sides but they are all part of the same triangle, in the ame way the father the son and the holy spirit are different but all part of the same god.

does anyone have a clue what all this means or why I had to learn it?

I think it sort of works like this:
The first thing you have to do in order to establish yourself as a God, is claim infaillability. Having done this, the rest is easy.
You come up with a story like the crusifiction when your polls go down, and, since you are infaillible, no one may question your version of the events.

I tried to write "I interpret..." just to minimize flaming. There was another thread which wasted posting real-estate on the "fact/belief/interpretation/opinion" discussion.

The problem can be that when the speaker says it's an opinion, the listeners may summarily dismiss his view. I think the way to proceed is to listen to the view, because if you search deep enough, there is usually a faith issue even among a non-believer. Again, you exercise blind faith when you believe Webster when learning a new word in your own language.

This may not be the place for it, but I had another deja vu last night which reminded me of an interesting situation.

Gen-X claims to have had what I would call a more intense and sustained deja vu than I ever recall having.
Sam sounds like he doesn't believe in deja vu (as you have explained it).
I wonder if it could be a doorway to evil or advancement of humankind.

Gen-X is a "believer" while Sam is a non-believer, and I am just searching for the truth with an open mind. Discuss...

there is a good webpage on all this crusifiction crap
http://www.beconvinced.com

kovan
I was surprised to see so much similarities with Christian belief at that link.

Tell me, is there a difference with Moslem versus Muslim? I knew one who was adamant about the usage of one term, yet both speak of Mecca and Islam.

Is that site about the white man being the devil?

What was the actual link for the "crusifiction crap"?

Sam

How could mary have been without sin if we are told we ALL sin from the moment we are born ;)

VirtuallyVB

Come with me... lets take a little walk and I will talk with you as we do so...

Quote:

---

. Again, you exercise blind faith when you believe Webster when learning a new word in your own language.

---

Now you see, I keep getting this impression you are trying to defend your "faith" by saying other people use faith for certain things... But in reality you are not saying this because you truely believe it but because it would be nice if it was the case because it would explain your own "faith"

There is nothing to do with "blind faith" in learning a new word from the dictionary. Despite what you may think people will "validate" their information in several different ways... whether that is having evidence that the source of the information is satisfactory to the point where credibility can be lent to the word due to this pre-validation, or whether they use the word to other people and depending on the response generate the evidence themselves as to its meaning.

Now I hear you say "Thats what we do with the Bible... thats how we know its fact"... So again I would drag up my old argument of saying "Fine, so you have no faith".

VVB... you certainly cannot confuse someone who accepts the meaning of a word, who will use it upon the off chance a sentence may require it to a life long "obsession" with the belief in the existance of an unprovable higher power and changing your entire life to suit that unproven fact.

One uses a well defined process of repeatable experimentation and definable and agreeable explaination (or multiple explainations in the case of words with multiple meanings), while the other sits as if it is untouchable, unchangable, refuses experimentation and ends up causing great division because each "faction" thinks they have gotten the meaning right.

Quote:

---

Gen-X is a "believer" while Sam is a non-believer, and I am just searching for the truth with an open mind. Discuss...

---

This is an incredibly interesting statement....

Where exactly did you get the idea I was a "believer"? I simply stated the facts of what happened and left the reason for it up to interpretation. Sam provided a possible explaination and I even agreed with him that that could be the answer.

How you got that I am a "believer" in Deja Vu out of that I have no idea... in fact if you read the posts it shows that I am searching for the truth with an open mind and am happy to accept alternate explainations based on the truth as it presents itself.


Perhaps the fact that you got this so totally backwards... and that you beleive you are actually looking with an open mind and we are not explains a lot of the reasons why you do not see the points that Sam and I are making in different areas.

I have to admit the fact you royally botched this one suggests to me that the view through which you use to determine the reasons behind things is very much rose-tinted

I would welcome your comments

Quote:

---

How could mary have been without sin if we are told we ALL sin from the moment we are born

---

Don't bloody ask me, I still maintain that the walking on water was done with mirrors.

[Edited by Sam Finch on 08-15-2000 at 07:29 PM]

As the Dread Pirate Roberts A.K.A. Wesley, said to the Sicilian in The Princess Bride, "You have a dizzying intellect." I'm afraid to "Wait until you get started".

On Deja Vu, Sam and Gen-X merely inspired the discussion (as I have already said). I figured Gen-X would back off of his conviction once it was related to the God argument. Gen-X will also feel the effect of "hypocrite" during his next deja vu experience. I'll give him this, I still don't see how I've botched anything. Perhaps it's his "adjusting" ways ;)

Where does the bible claim that Mary was sinless? Another Catholic fallacy like the Pope being the Father on earth perhaps. I've read effectively about the "Immaculate Conception", not sinless Mary.

I have a book on the science of Christmas, and it explains how a virgin birth would be impossible under the circumstances, and what would have happened if it had occurred. It is possible, yes, but Mary would have been sterile, without a set of female sex organs.

Sam

Quote:

---

Don't bloody ask me, I still maintain that the walking on water was done with mirrors

---

Hehehehehe... Obviously you missed my smiley after it, I wish they had a smiley for "tongue-in-cheek"

Harry

I apologise (and to VVB as well) if my response appeared to be harsh, I was merely trying to point out that VVB had grabbed the wrong end of the stick (which for some reason we both seem to do to each other quite often).

Considering I am of open mind I shall redefine it as "sideways" rather than "totally backwards", than you for the correction :)

As to "faith"... yes I believe you are right, the Christian religion has made their own definition for the word, they even raised it to be a virtue... I only continue to point out the discrepancy because they try to use their definition of the word to describe the same thing in people who do not share their self-created one in the hope they will one day realise this... but alas they dont :(

VVB

Quote:

---

I figured Gen-X would back off of his conviction once it was related to the God argument

---

Mmmm... did I back off? [Confused and Dazed]

Quote:

---

Gen-X will also feel the effect of "hypocrite" during his next deja vu experience

---

Actually I will treat it the same as everything else, because I don't have a firm understanding or even theory (its a pet theory about the cross-talk because it sounds... "cute") I won't feel anything because it isn't going to shatter any belief I have one way or the other :)

Quote:

---

I'll give him this, I still don't see how I've botched anything. Perhaps it's his "adjusting" ways

---

Lets do a little experiment shall we?

VVB... my mirror-friend, please quote for me the lines of my own post that lead you to believe that I was a "believer" in Deja Vu, and please make sure those quotes are in the context of what I was saying at the time.

If you can show me why quotes that say this... and not miss my quotes that say the exact opposite, then I will renounce my claim of you "adjusting" and be humble. If however you fail to quote me correctly I expect you to acknowledge you "adjusting" and we will be done with it.

Deal?

Quote:

---

Where does the bible claim that Mary was sinless?

---

It was in response to what Sam said and done with tongue-in-cheek... I was just setting him straight on your behalf ;)