socks

Oh sure, I take it seriously. I just don't think that VPW spoke one thing and within the words was a deeper meaning that he wasn't aware of. If we go that route here, it does classify what you propose as a second generation (or 3rd, 4th, whatever) of PFAL and not what VPW taught and "really meant" if only people had been listening or taking him seriously. I would guess - and that's what we're doing - that he could have entertained what you suggest but as a separate point but it wouldn't be his, it would be yours. In PFAL everything proceeds from believing "the Word". The gift takes no action of it's own. All results are a manifestaton of some kind of action taken by the person - with one exception, healing. "gifts of healing", and "all healing is a gift", were taught. Healing can be a product of believing action, but in PFAL the root of healing is taught as self-generating, a result of life. Life corrects, regenerates, heals, within limits. Healing can occur, does occur, with or without believing action on our part, in other words because the human body is made to heal itself, within some limits. So - cancer has "life of it's own"....? and is produced as a result of a daimonion? Hmmmm....there are 1000's of living organisms that invade our bodies all the time, and the natural healing process, with assistance, can fight them off. What makes cancer so damaging is evident but to track it as uniquely having a "life of it's own" would only indicate, at most, that it's a very strong form of attack within the body. What causes it doesn't have to be anymore specific to a D. Spiritza's presence, anymore than any other kind of illness. All disease is bad for the body.

My Wife went to Wal Mart this evening. She survived. She also bought something really cool. Wal Mart has a hand crank flashlight, for 7.00 - seven bucks. It's an emergency style flashlight, but would work anytime natch. Crank the pop out handle a few times and sweet jumpin' jellybeans! You got light. For seven bucks, can't beat it with a stick. I got some hand crank emergency radio/cellphone chargers last year, 40 bucks each. These are so cheap, it's like putting money in your pocket. At 7.00 dineros, what's not to like. No batteries, no charger plug in to lose. Crank it and bank it. They're made in China, fairly sturdy. No warnings or disclaimers ("do not use this product as a floatation device or hat. Should not be placed over the face or eaten if you are pregnant or plan on getting pregnant if Dummy ever pops the question."). None of that. Pretty straightforward. Hope this improves your lives in untold ways. Fondly, your pal, socks

Maybe he did, unintentionally. His references to cancer were of the physical disease. D.Spritizas playing a part. I'm sure he never meant it even implied "possession" in the sense of mental presence of control, so all the hacking at him being possessed of the very thing he taught doesn't stand up, to me anyway. I suspect he meant some kind of physical attack or barrage by a D.Spiritza. It's legit to wonder how or why such an attack doesn't just happen all the time then. Most people have some kind of weaknesses physically. I really don't think it all works out from the way he taught it. I think it's a logical conclusion from PFAL that words do have substance though, "power". The logos, in exousia. PFAL teaches clearly that positive and negative confessions effect outcomes. Use the words of the Word and God honors them. Use the words of Satan and...? It's really just a step away from religious incantations, spell casting, power-words, icons, and a lot of other things. But to your question I would disagree that he meant, cancerous confessions or the like, that sort of line of thought, when he taught about this other cancer stuff. He was talking about the physical disease known as "cancer". To add - consider this 300 mllg's of aspirin. Glad we're back on a regular regimen now.

Dunno about cancer but this thread is taking on a life of it's own. Maybe an aspirin will get it back on track.

Larry, I don't know what's going on. The Board's owner is Pawtucket, and it's his biz to determine how it goes. Totally off topic - not knowing what specifically caused the Screening process, I'll say from a completely uninformed position that I disagree with posts being Screened, meaning I wouldn't do that. Course I'm not privvy to specifics, and don't have to do the work of dealing with posts that have some kind of "questionable" content. While I certainly haven't agreed with some of your posts in the past Larry, they took no skin off my nose. If there's something else going on, I don't know what it is. To me if there's a problem it gets corrected or that's that. You're off the board. That's after some negotiation and effort to come to an understanding but if there isn't any I'd figure fine, that's it. That would go for me or anyone. So I dunno. GS is always going to attract heated discussion, it's always been that way. I don't see the need for it but I see how it happens, me included. But to me, what happens on the board is the board's business and that's where it stays. I learned this long ago, when I received some very gross emails from someone, shortly after I started having a presence on the 'Net. I dealt with that very directly and have determined since then to maintain, for my part, some level of decorum that would be generally acceptable and reasonable. If there's a problem, I'll recognize it. That way I know if anything comes down the pike to me that's out of order, someone's got a problem, and it's not me. I have no patience for threatening behavior or words and once that line's been crossed there's only one way back. I hope this gets worked out. Seems like it could be.

James Miller on the sexual nature of man: "At any rate the best way to understand his sexual nature is to observe sex in his relatives, the animals. A typical example of sex among the animals is seen by observing the dog. " Oh yeah. Aaaaaah. YES! This is why I will continue to come to GS. I couldn't make this stuff up if I TRIED. There's gems here people. GOLD. I'll leave it to Mr. Miller to do the long term observation of sex amongst dogs. It's really inviting and I know I could learn a lot, but I'll stick to humans. As far as humans go, I'd - wait. Sorry. I can't continue. The Laugh Meter's PEGGED.

Thanks, it was a long time ago. An unfortunate and sad way to learn a lot in a way no one would choose. But that's the way it was. If I could go back and talk to that younger man I'd tell him not to blame himself. I don't know if it would help, some things have to be learned in their own time and way maybe. Dot, I think in retrospect that the key to a long relationship for us has been like what you're describing - we were close friends, had fun together and enjoyed each other's company in all the ways you would want to with someone. We were really young, but it was cultivated over time. It didn't take long for me to realize though "this was it" and there was a point where I knew it. After that, everything else was easy, for me. Over 36 years there's going to be some ups and downs, some goods and bads. While I don't advise others to try and duplicate what we've had, I always recommend that people come together and let their mutual love form a bond of it's own for them. Let their concern, care, love for each other make something new, something they can both build and contribute to. Separately we support each other. I'm my Wife's #1 fan. If it's good for her, it's good. I want her to succeed, be happy. Together we have something that's bigger than the two of us. That's the wild thing about a relationship that seems to grow over the years. With each other we can do things that we couldn't alone. Children are the perfect example of that, but it shows in countless other ways too. That love shared becomes a powerful force to be honored, respected, served. We took the "vows", and at the time there's no way of knowing what's coming down the pike. A small example - ice cream. We laugh about it now. But it's one of those little things that get learned, after you think you know. For years, I'd get ice cream and buy certain kinds, like Pistachio, or Butterscotch Swirl, or something, can't remember what they were but I usually got the same stuff. And we'd have ice cream. She'd get chocolate but I always got this other stuff for us. It was several years later that my Wife told me, she likes chocolate ice cream. How about some chocolate ice cream here? In fact, she's a real lover of Chocolate, serious. I remember kind of getting a blank moment - chocolate. Right. Of course. Now I wouldn't think to buy her anything else, if I was buying for her. I was definitely brain damaged, not getting the message for so many years. It's the only explanation. Why she never bopped me on the head and left me for an ice cream vendor? She's a patient woman. :)

Rocky's on my page. Play some now but plan a lot now for later. It's a balance, scales tipped to retirement, "sunset years", when you're an old fart and hopefully have the physical and mental capacity to still know when to and not to. Smaller amounts of money set aside and allowed to ferment longer does better, generally, than large amounts set aside for less time. Depends on how it's invested of course but you can have much lower risk over the long term, so your money's saferto grow. Pretty basic stuff. I really only started looking at all of this about 18 years ago. As recently as this year I had to get advice from our accountant, who repeated the "magic words" of financial planning - you can only plan for what you know, not what you don't. Plan for possiblities, but don't base all your planning on them. Like S.S. It may not be there when I need it, true. But as of now, I would plan for it to be there. Health Care - I made a decision to choose towards a decison that would guarantee (as much as can be known now) to have health care in place for me and dependents for life. Given my overall circumstances it seemed a wise way to invest x amount of income, now and later. If your best laid plan would include you having the mental and physical capacity to enjoy life until it's last day, act accordingly so as to be able to do that as best you can now. I wouldn't blow every penny on life now, but I wouldn't deny myself completely now to do that, if I had a choice, is what I'm getting at. If there was no choice, I'd be frugal and defer spending now, so as to give what income I do have as much time over the long haul to work, whether it be to pay bills, eat, or save. The real question is - how do you want to live life, not how others do or have. Once your values are clear, it's easier to make decisions.

Thanks Oaks. Lifted up, my sentiments exactly. Choice is necessary. Christian doctrines differ. There are those who believe God has predetermined each choice, others don't believe that. But in either case, the person has to make the choice, in the end for it to be valid. "Heart", not at the point of a gun, figurative or otherwise. In a sense though it seems that some choices are made for us by the lives we live, as a result of the choices we've made. The outcome of a series of events, actions and choices has a result, an outcome. One that may not be predictable from one side but that's reasonable once it's occured. Matters of faith often include those outcomes that fall out of that normal flow of expectations. IOW, I may be faced with something that can't be explained in light of the causes and choices I've made alone. Something else" is implied or obvious and needs to be considered.

I agree Larry, that as a non-member, I have no stake in CES or it's affairs. "I" do nothing with them, get nothing. For my limited interest I'd be happy to know that CES members were aware of what's going on and aware that these events are playing out. Why? Well, number one, they could pray for the situation and be available to help if needed. It's not a minor difference and it would be next to impossible for it to not effect other areas of the church. Churches aren't businesses first and foremost, they're communities of Christian people, each with responsibilities and needs. There's purpose behind the group. It isn't just publishing or operations. So if that's happened and some sort of plan is in place that would be good and right IMO. If not they're not functioning at a very effective level cutting out the majority of their membership. Doing so doesn't strike the personal communication that's gone on, and the information that's been dispersed here. It just leaves everything open to speculation, misinformation and manipulation by everyone involved. Other than that, the use of GS can be viewed as an entirely different audience for the most part. All of the non-CES posters here may not need to know on a daily basis what's going on in the hearts and minds of the principals or the affairs of CES. But GS should be communicated with on the level it was started. If it was used as a method to distribute information an expectation is in place about that information. What happened? What's the outcome? etc. Not doing that is odd, to say the least. On the face it implies manipulation of information. Someone determined to get the info out when it suited them and their purposes, but not now. It doesn't really matter if the status of the lawsuit prevents open discussion of the issues legally or as a concern to produce a reasonable outcome for the people involved. What's at issue in my mind is common sense and courtesy. This forum was left *snap* like that, with nary a "here's what's happening and I/we/they feel it's best to not post anymore information here in light of where it's gone. Here's what happend....( ) Thank you for your prayers, concern and interest. At some point in the future I/we/they will likely have more to say and when I/we/they do we'll keep you posted. Thanks again". Nada, zip. O-nay on the Ost-pay. Dried up. Quiet. Silence. Gone. "Thanks it was nice I had a good time this summer but my girl's back from vacation now".

Really? Joyful Noise didn't wear nametags? I know I didn't, or tried to avoid it. It wasn't a big deal, I just didn't like them, the hole business about the pins making wholes. Holes. Although the Holy Spirit dove pins, with the nametag, made for a rather spiffy look. You also got 3 pin holes in a single wearing. Added value, right there.

Nametags - the new game from ZowTel! 1. Wear them - you lose, you get a pin hole in your clothing. How to identify someone who'd been in the Way a long time? Don't need a nametag, their blouse or shirt looked like it'd been hit with a shotgun blast. 2. Don't wear them - you lose, someone's bound to figure you're "above" such matters. So your clothes stay nice but you get a rep as a snob. Or you don't get into the meeting. How to Win - see #2. Use extra time not in the meeting spreading new rumors about yourself. exmalloy, someone obviously didn't get the memo. Anyone without a green/brown/blue/red nametag was to be accosted at least 3 times with PFAL cards before being allowed to leavea. My apologies to your family.

cman's comment made me think of the one body example, which can be applied to across the board I think. Some people may have insights and understanding that come to them in any form - learning, insight, actual events. Others, none. Insisting that one person work to duplicate what another's learned and experienced will prove futile in this area. Geroge, saying to you, "try again, try harder, try it like this", is fine, to a degree if your interests are the ones being served. And everyone means well, right? Even the most boring repetitive rehetoric. :) But it may very well be a waste of time because putting you on my timetable and to my expectations is useless. So pestering other people is stupid. My thought is - there's nothing "wrong" with how an atheist believes or feels. They may be wrong by what I believe to be true, limited in understanding but the truth is I am too in my own ways. Everyone is. It's completely normal that some won't come to the same place as I am. When a Christian insists that another believe and do as they do and how they do - that's wrong. Everyone's place is in development and it's their own. Likewise humanity as a whole, within it's own collection, "body". It's everyone's job to bring what they have and contribute it, honestly and truthfully.

cman, you've gone to a topic that's not really dealt with much here, methinks. Or if it is, I've missed it. Christianity, The Latest Version, tends to present this era of the One Body of Christ as an enviornment where everyone, every "member" is the same. Everyone will have the same spirit and love of God and as a result of Christ's redemption everyone will know God the same, function the same, and all see signs, miracles, wonders and you name it. I don't think it's that way at all. An incendiary statement I know, but I'll try to offer an explanation. All are loved of God, Christ died for all, and all can come to Christ and be saved. All Christians form the Body of Christ and God dwells in us all, in Christ. The way this "Body" is described in the New Testament though indicates that each member will function differently. Everyone has a place, but everyone doesn't have the same place. Everybody doesn't do the same thing, have the same strengths or weakness, doesn't excel equally. In theory everyone could, but everyone doesn't. It's not a bad thing, it's the way it is and the way it ought to be, given the metaphor of a "body". People will always say "I don't get it". About some things, maybe everything. I do, you do, we all do. The job of each member is to make their own unique contribution. Religion tends to want to make us all sit up and bark the same way. It absolutely doesn't work that way. "Freedom" in Christ is usually defined in such a way as to limit it, not by what Christ has done but by a list of minimum requirements imposed on each individual. I've found in Churches that think that way I see more false expectation, more fraudulent behavior. Courteous, nice behavior but well patterned, learned behavior. Let someeone say "I don't see God that way you teach, I don't get it', and it's equal to sacrilege. EVeryone is expected to feel good, act blessed and say hallelujah enough times at the right time. God blesses everyone the same way, equally, step up and show your stuff. But I don't think that's the case. I tend to think it's the responsibility of everyone to share what they've got. Those who feel they have insight or understanding need to speak for that. It doesn't matter if others don't accept it because they don't see it every "working" that way. It's important that those who do speak about it and "hold forth" as it were. With the patience and love that a member in a body would show. Each does their part for the whole.

Well, happy birthday! :)

Yikes! Thanks. That and this, back to you! I"m waxing on, waxing off. Dunno. It's work but it's not. I'm just ridin' the wave. I know we all deserve good, and like love, good is where you find it and I did. Lighting struck and I've been talkin' funny ever since. :)

I've been reading along, thinking for a few days how to put into words my thoughts on this. dmiller's post on the Touch of the Master's Hand hit home. I think a relationship where you're loved is filling. It's inspiring. It's like Red Bull. It gives me wings. :) The love of my wife for me has made me a better person. Many years ago, I remember when we had our kids and they were toddlers, two years apart, it was a huge amount of work doing everything that needed to be done. Every parent knows how challenging it can be, yet we always appreciated them and wanted them. We had lost our first child, a horrible time. When we had our son about a year later, I knew beyond any doubt when I first held him what my calling was. I was The Dad. I've loved every minute of it. Our daughter came and our joy multiplied. And I remember my wife one day, when I asked her as she was doing some stuff for them if she needed any help. She said, no, she was fine. "This is how we get close to them, by doing things for them". It was a funny thing to hear, but it was a view into her heart and intents, and I've never forgotten it. Her love is in doing, she loved doing for them and drawing them close to her as she did. She's The Mom. I've learned that and so much more from her. It does fill me up. That love is playing me everyday, even still, after many years. Long ago I remember meeting her and feeling like I'd seen a light at the end of a long dark tunnel. It was the love we had that made me want to pull out of the mist and grab hold of it and never let go. Love saved me, of that - no doubt. Most of the time it's simple things - trust, humor. A comfortable moment. A look, a glance. A smile. A frown. Happy, sad, angry, passionate. It's everything I want, nothing I don't.

It's a wonderful poem. Thanks!

You shouldn't be bolshevik. You should be true to yourself. Why play though. Why not be who you really are?

.

George, I thnk we're seeing how the areas of religion and science end up polarized. Dawkins deals in his area of endeavor. By definition, science isn't going to and probably shouldn't enter into the philosophical or religious arenas to be effective. As much as science works to forge understanding out of information it's admirable. Likewise with religion and philosphy. They're not separate and divided, each informs the other IMO. But for each to be effective they have to allow for the fact that they may exclude each other entirely. That Dawkins does his work is fine with me. He recongizes that's all he does because he feels that's the only logical conclusion based on what he knows. Just as you pose the question to consider for moment that maybe religious faith isn't true or real, I pose another. What if it IS. What if both are true - man's understanding of the physical universe which is always underway and in process, and God? Consider for a moment that one doesn't exclude the other but that they're both true and factual. The question then is, how? The answer isn't "they can't be" in this hypothetical question. If you were to find out tomorrow that everything you understand today is true, but there is a God - then how the f@#k does that work out? To a certain degree that's the situation I found myself in long ago. I've tried to disprove that what I believe(d) by "faith" wasn't true. Where I started with was that a large number of events in my life weren't explainable by normal methods, which took away from them to one degree or another, as if they hadn't happened the way I knew they did. In the face of having to let them stand on their own I proceeded, and I continue to do that. I really don't know what else to do, it's the only honest authentic response I could have.

What did the fish say the 1,000,000th time it crawled up on the beach bfore it swam back? "(GASP!) Is this really supposed to work?!" sky4it, that's an interesting calculation. Thanks. That's just it, AnotherDan. If God is to work or communicate most directly and personally to people within the thoughts, awareness, "mind" of the individual the measurements for that are going to be different than if I'm weighing and dating rocks. When Dawkins goes through the background and quotes on the "Trinity" he pulls out some of the convoluted logic and language that's been produced on it. That's legitimate, I think and could be applied to any number of different topics and ideas of Christian religion. But all of religious thought doesn't fall into the same category or have the same weaknesses. For a person to have the very basic view that there's a "spiritual" component to life, it seems Dawkins wants to jump us through hoops immediately - "that's not true, there's no god, you can't prove that by any means other than your own misguided thoughts". How do I validate in "idea"? A thought? The ability to plan for the future? The ability to romanticize a base survival instinct into the misguided sense of "love"? Oh, those are just biomechanical impulses, complex processes of minute reactions and responses that have been bred into you by millions of years of difficult struggle and evolution, dude. You're fooling yourself. Prove it, Dawkins. So far I don't think he has. He can scrabble together all the hoohah's he wants against man's religious follies. When I get back to what's being proposed, at a base level, he can't prove or disprove that there is or isn't a God or purpose or plan to life, be it once or throughout man's history. What he really does prove I think that man at this stage makes choices, regardless of what he believes. Bad choices aren't restricted to those who have religious faith or don't. Apparently the "azshole" gene is deeply entrenched in everyone. Ultimately he lays it back on me. "You prove it if there's anything there". But he won't accept the proof I'd offer, if I did. I could offer 1000's of instances of what I'd call advanced awareness and consistent contact by and with "God" and he says that while he'll allow the imagined comfort I get from it all, it's not "real". So be it, for him. That's why I say each person has to get their own faith. Or not. I can't have yours or you mine. There's a line from a movie, where the character playing an "angel" is taking to a person who says they don't believe in God. They ask the person, "then how do you explain it?" Explain what? "The enduring myth of heaven?" Their answer is, they don't, it's not true. And the response is "some things are true whether you believe them or not". Which works both ways I guess. Man may have historically developed the idea of some never-never land to make himself feel good at night in the cold, dark cave. Or there could be another explanation for the consistent fact that man at different stages of his history has become aware of God. Could God be trying to tell us something? Like "look, I'm right here".

AnotherDan, I do think it's very much Some Things Considered. Not that Dawkins doesn't have lots of things he's considered. I'm not faulting the work and expertise he brings to the table, but I do wonder at what point he decided to draw the line. F'instance, evolution. Dawkins notes murder, war, brutality, prejudice, all sorts of things we would normally consider "bad" as being prominent in the O.T. Yet in his overall work he's noted how the progression of life has been and is constantly as the harsh expense of others. Animals eat each, the weak ones are killed for food by other hungry ones, etc. That's the reality of life that Dawkins recognizes that's part of how life progresses, that it's a constant struggle filled with suffering and hardship. How a "loving" God created such a world or allowed it to exist seems contrary to what religion proposes. Yet what the Israelites did in the O.T. by killing their enemies for whatever reasons is exactly along the lines of the reality he proposes. Killing those of other "pagan" beliefs insures that there won't be infiltration by opposing influences. It insures survival, and that's how evolution progresses, by those who can adapt and change and take advantage of the resources available. If that means eliminating competitors, so be it. Survival is essential. So basically the Israelites of record were behaving in a manner compatible with what he believes. I think the point he wants to make - that using religious beliefs as the foundation for actions can be, is, dangerous is partially true. But the religion he's describing seems to be right in line with the way he believes life evolves. That being the case, it's perfectly right and natural. Is God a delusion? Dawkins states religion isn't based on "fact", it's based on "personal revelation". He denies the validity of personal revelation. But I guess that's where the "Some Things" comes in. Not that all personal revelation is right because someone says it is. But if in fact that involves real events there could be more there than meets the eye, and reducing them to delusions seems contrary to honest inquiry. It's like water in a box. A square box fills up with water and the water shapes into a square, because that's the container it's held in. But it's still water and will reshape to whatever contain I put it in. It flows, fills, evaporates, freezes, cools and heats. But in the box I put it in, it assumes the shape of the container.

I'm with you there. One of the things that Dawkins talks about is the constant destruction that produces the beautiful success of the evolutionary processes. If surviving at whatever costs is the work of the creature there's going to be some fallout. And he notes that the human species has (finally?) developed the ability to do more than satisfy short term needs and project through imagination into the future the results of it's actions, what is the least accceptable action, better, better still, "best". Out of that comes a constantly balancing of our actions - "morals", ethics, letting the welfare of others become a factor in our own well being. Which is all well and good. I'm not a scientist and know little about most of the areas Dawkins deals in. But I believe he recognizes that while "evolution can't be immediately observed on the scale proposed, he believes we can see the results of it. That the world we're faced with today can have an explanation and that the simplest explanation isn't "God" or any such things, but rather can be deduced, implied, hinted at certainly and grasped by much more down to earth components. One of the things about evolution that has to be considered therefore is that we are observing it from this end, the current state, and looking back and projecting forward, definitely projecting forward as we have to assume the processes that have been at work thus far will continue and if they do they're predicatable to a certain degree. I don't know if he's stated that but it seems he'd have to. Sure, anything's possible, but if anything was truly possible, "God" would be a considered possiblity to be studied and he doesn't do that. The things that others call "God" he fits into his world view. So there's some expections, boundaries that are being kept in an "anything's possible" scenario. But to my eye - whether we accept evolution or not, however we view life and it's progression over time one thing we see is that it's moved in a very definite pattern. Whether it was survival or direction the overall parameters of physical life have followed a very definite pattern. Remember - anything's possible, if not probable, as long as it' doesn't entertain any "God" or "spiritual" components. I've posted this several years ago, and it's not fully developed but - consider the consistencies in how life functions... Movement. Physical movement is accomplished by the same rules and regs for any living thing. To get from one place to another it walks, crawls, swims, flies, pushes, pulls, oozes and oogs it's way from here to there. The path is constant throughout movement. Is that the most efficient method of transportation? Given the extreme challanges that life has faced over the millenia it would seem likely that alternative methods of transport would have developed but they haven't. If they are in process they're so slight as to be undiscernable. Again, projecting into the future what we see from the past there may be more efficiencies to be gained but-Why don't we see other kinds? Or do we? What are they? Sight/Perception. Life sees, feels, knows what it knows by it's ability to capture information around it by it's own body. Why only that way? Is there something ideal about having an eye, or two, or the senses of touch, smell, hearing? Maybe wer'e not done yet but that's pretty much what's comng down the path. Self. The awareness of being "me", and not you. Why is there only one "me", while there are and have been billions of other humans very much like "me", but never me. Why only one me? Evolution may have produced this brain thinking this, but why does this one think it's the only one like it? Is it? If so, why? Wouldn't it be efficient in many ways to have true replication? Not cloning, but simultaneous and recurring identities? From an evoltionary standpoint that would be killer - imagine what "we" could do. To me life is much more directed than I think Dawkins credits, but I'm not completely sure of everything he proposes. My sense is that external creation would be a viable concept if nothing else. It would account for why the world is the way it is and not something else. God knows :) there's been enough time for some true diversity in the essense of life and it's products to develop. Where are they? And what is going on today that might point to future diversification? I know it's kind of a silly proposition. Hey, it's the future, anything can happen right? As long as God doesn't show up, anything's possible.