Putting An End3 To The War Between Good And Evil

[bornagainathiest]

You mean this, End?

 

Posted 28 May 2016 - 02:55 PM

end3, on 28 May 2016 - 7:31 PM, said:

 

 

Quit being a dick. The verse is the one that says now they have become like us......that they now "know". That word basically says that they were then able to discern, to consider, to become wise about good and evil. So I stand by what I said about they could experience, but will allow they weren't able to weigh the consequences before.

 

Thank you making my argument for me, End.

With His perfect foreknowledge God would have known that before they ate the fruit they wouldn't have been able to weigh the consequences of their actions.

So He knew this when he said to Adam...

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

You say that we ultimately want to blame God.

But the text itself does that without any help from us.

Ultimately it cuts no ice if the Adam and Eve were surrounded by morally good fruit or were able to experience the goodness of everything God provided them with.

Not if He withheld the ability to weigh the consequences of their actions from them.

Again, thank you for making my argument so succinctly. 

.

.

.

Sorry, but this is not where we agree that Adam and Eve experienced good before they ate the fruit.

 

Please carefully read the line I've highlighted and you'll see that it's... hypothetical.

 

I wrote that it would cut no ice... if ...they were surrounded by morally good fruit.  IF.

 

And it would cut no ice... were ...they able to experience the goodness of everything around them.  WERE.  

 

That's not an agreement between us that they DID experience good before they ate.

 

I also thanked you for agreeing with me that they weren't able to weigh the consequences of their actions before they ate.

 

Not that they experienced good before they ate.

 

Two different things.

.

.

.

So what I wrote earlier today still stands.

 

It is not agreed between us that Adam and Eve experienced either good or evil before they ate.

 

But I'm sorry if the "succinctly" post was confusingly worded.

 

I hope you can now see that I was speaking hypothetically.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Good U evil, please clarify.

Had to clarify for myself...been too long...although a simple clarification. If God has the capability of the output of good and evil, it does not necessarily mean that they are always in intersection with each other.....that who ever experiences God, experiences both good and evil.

 

For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

I don't know the answer Prof. Are you evil? You have the knowledge and the capability.

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

 

If you'd like, I can explain precisely why it was necessary for Adam and Eve to experience both "good" and "evil".  Unfortunately, you are not going to like the answer.  

 

First, however, you'll need to handle your business with BAA; because, unless I'm mistaken, understanding the point he is trying to make will be a huge help in understanding why Adam and Eve needed to experience "evil".

 

Are you in?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Good U evil, please clarify.

Had to clarify for myself...been too long...although a simple clarification. If God has the capability of the output of good and evil, it does not necessarily mean that they are always in intersection with each other.....that who ever experiences God, experiences both good and evil.

 

For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

I don't know the answer Prof. Are you evil? You have the knowledge and the capability.

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

 

If you'd like, I can explain precisely why it was necessary for Adam and Eve to experience both "good" and "evil".  Unfortunately, you are not going to like the answer.  

 

First, however, you'll need to handle your business with BAA; because, unless I'm mistaken, understanding the point he is trying to make will be a huge help in understanding why Adam and Eve needed to experience "evil".

 

Are you in?

 

 

End's misread one of my posts, Prof.

 

He's taken me to be in agreement with him over Adam and Eve experiencing good before they ate the fruit.

 

Whereas, I posit a hypothetical, saying that even if this were so, it wouldn't have cut any ice because until they ate they were unable to know good or evil.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[midniterider]

 

End: For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

...

 

Exactly. We try to behave in a good way to nurture our children. We do whatever we can to keep them safe.

How would we know to do that except knowing evil?

 

We definitely need to know good from evil in order to show our children good.

 

Everyone here says that God is evil for not telling A&E, yet he allowed them to experience it. Isn't this pretty much has to happen anyhow?

 

God was evil because he set A&E up for failure. The information they needed to understand why they should "not eat from this tree" was locked up in the tree. It's like telling someone to mark the correct answer on the answer sheet but you can't read the question till afterwards. And then there's the original sin we all have to pay for because A&E screwed up? Why is that fair (or logical)?

 

My parents said don't do that, but ultimately I had to understand why I shouldn't.

 

My parents said 'dont do that' but if it was something like picking up a kitchen knife and stabbing the dog they physically restrained me from doing that. Other behaviors with not-so-terrible outcomes they may let me do if I needed to learn from it. "Go ahead, spend all your money right now...you won't have any more for later...don't expect me to give you more!" But they never put the fate of humanity in my hands.

 

I guess the question is....should he have explained the pain, the suffering, and the ultimate suffering for choosing evil? Would it make a difference? Has it with humanity today?

 

Would you explain the pain, suffering etc to your own child? Or just say, "This is a grenade. I'm setting it on the dining room table. Dont pull that pin. I'm not gonna tell you why. It'll just be really bad if you do." Or would you say, "Hmmm, I think a bomb tech needs to come take this grenade out of my house..." :-)

 

People are still going to do stupid stuff, for sure. Humanity is full of idiots.  I think the only point we are trying to make here in the thread is that God doesn't always play nice. So why say, "God is good, all the time...." Cuz he isn't. 

 

But I think the A&E story is fiction and if there is a God, he's light years ahead in intelligence than the simple God represented in the bible.

 

Seems like if a God (real god) was going to start civilization off with two people he'd just say, "Ok you two....start doing it" and not be hung up on sex and trees and all that bible BS.

[duderonomy]

 

End: For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

...

 

Exactly. We try to behave in a good way to nurture our children. We do whatever we can to keep them safe.

How would we know to do that except knowing evil?

 

Everyone here says that God is evil for not telling A&E, yet he allowed them to experience it. Isn't this pretty much has to happen anyhow?

 

My parents said don't do that, but ultimately I had to understand why I shouldn't.

 

I guess the question is....should he have explained the pain, the suffering, and the ultimate suffering for choosing evil? Would it make a difference? Has it with humanity today?

 

 

 

The part I bolded End, and mostly that last question is you avoiding the point. You can't compare innocent humanity with fallen humanity.

 

By the way, do you have BAA on ignore or something? He's making some good points and asking some good questions.

 

Sooner or later you're going to have to admit that the Genesis story just doesn't work in the real world, or go back to fundymentalism where you and the remnant are righteous and the rest of the whole world is wrong, no?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Good U evil, please clarify.

Had to clarify for myself...been too long...although a simple clarification. If God has the capability of the output of good and evil, it does not necessarily mean that they are always in intersection with each other.....that who ever experiences God, experiences both good and evil.

 

For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

I don't know the answer Prof. Are you evil? You have the knowledge and the capability.

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

 

If you'd like, I can explain precisely why it was necessary for Adam and Eve to experience both "good" and "evil".  Unfortunately, you are not going to like the answer.  

 

First, however, you'll need to handle your business with BAA; because, unless I'm mistaken, understanding the point he is trying to make will be a huge help in understanding why Adam and Eve needed to experience "evil".

 

Are you in?

 

 

End's misread one of my posts, Prof.

 

He's taken me to be in agreement with him over Adam and Eve experiencing good before they ate the fruit.

 

Whereas, I posit a hypothetical, saying that even if this were so, it wouldn't have cut any ice because until they ate they were unable to know good or evil.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I know.  But until he comes to realize exactly when Adam and Eve were able to "weigh the consequences"; I can't move forward into "why" the consequences were designed the way they were in the first place.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Good U evil, please clarify.

Had to clarify for myself...been too long...although a simple clarification. If God has the capability of the output of good and evil, it does not necessarily mean that they are always in intersection with each other.....that who ever experiences God, experiences both good and evil.

 

For example, we may both know good and evil, but don't present both to our children.

 

I don't know the answer Prof. Are you evil? You have the knowledge and the capability.

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

 

If you'd like, I can explain precisely why it was necessary for Adam and Eve to experience both "good" and "evil".  Unfortunately, you are not going to like the answer.  

 

First, however, you'll need to handle your business with BAA; because, unless I'm mistaken, understanding the point he is trying to make will be a huge help in understanding why Adam and Eve needed to experience "evil".

 

Are you in?

 

 

End's misread one of my posts, Prof.

 

He's taken me to be in agreement with him over Adam and Eve experiencing good before they ate the fruit.

 

Whereas, I posit a hypothetical, saying that even if this were so, it wouldn't have cut any ice because until they ate they were unable to know good or evil.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I know.  But until he comes to realize exactly when Adam and Eve were able to "weigh the consequences"; I can't move forward into "why" the consequences were designed the way they were in the first place.

 

 

Just so, Prof.

 

And he can't realize when Adam and Eve were first able to "weigh the consequences" of their actions until he looks at what scripture says about how God set the test up.

 

How God set it up defines when they were first able to do that.

 

So, until End agrees to do this... it's a stymie.

 

Nobody in this thread can move forward.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

[Guest end3]

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

 

No.  They were not subject to both if all of creation was "good" (as defined by god), and the Garden was still perfect, and Adam and Eve were still innocent.  They could not have been subject to evil, since it did not exist; and they could not have been subject to good because they had no way of understanding what "good" meant (except as vaguely defined by god, i.e. creation was "good").

[Guest end3]

 

 

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

 

No.  They were not subject to both if all of creation was "good" (as defined by god), and the Garden was still perfect, and Adam and Eve were still innocent.  They could not have been subject to evil, since it did not exist; and they could not have been subject to good because they had no way of understanding what "good" meant (except as vaguely defined by god, i.e. creation was "good").

 

Then the temptation was good?????????????? WELL, WAS IT?

[bornagainathiest]

 

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

 

 

You've introduced a new term into the discussion, End.

 

Before today you'd maintained that Adam and Eve 'experienced' good and evil before they ate the fruit.

 

Now you're saying they were 'subject to' both good and evil before they ate.

 

Could you please define what you mean by 'subject to'...?

.

.

.

Also, could you please explain to us why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set the conditions of Adam and Eve's test?

 

After all, on the day this thread began, you wrote...  "Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test."

 

This is confusing.  Could you please help us out here?

.

.

.

Please note that I'm not asking you to move ahead with us in a discussion of how God set up His test.  

Instead I'm asking you to define what you've written today - experienced vs subject to. 

And also to tell us why you think moving ahead as the Prof suggests isn't helpful.

Neither of these things constitutes 'moving ahead' because that can only be done with the agreement of all parties - and you haven't agreed to do so.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

 

No.  They were not subject to both if all of creation was "good" (as defined by god), and the Garden was still perfect, and Adam and Eve were still innocent.  They could not have been subject to evil, since it did not exist; and they could not have been subject to good because they had no way of understanding what "good" meant (except as vaguely defined by god, i.e. creation was "good").

 

Then the temptation was good?????????????? WELL, WAS IT?

 

A lot of questions arise here.  Was it really "temptation?"  Did god include the possibility of temptation when he described everything as "good"?  Did god plan for the temptation?

 

However, this is nothing more than another bunny trail like we had with the serpent.  Obviously, the temptation was designed by god; and god declared it "good".

 

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress...

[Guest end3]

 

 

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

 

 

You've introduced a new term into the discussion, End.

 

Before today you'd maintained that Adam and Eve 'experienced' good and evil before they ate the fruit.

 

Now you're saying they were 'subject to' both good and evil before they ate.

 

Could you please define what you mean by 'subject to'...?

.

.

.

Also, could you please explain to us why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set the conditions of Adam and Eve's test?

 

After all, on the day this thread began, you wrote...  "Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test."

 

This is confusing.  Could you please help us out here?

.

.

.

Please note that I'm not asking you to move ahead with us in a discussion of how God set up His test.  

Instead I'm asking you to define what you've written today - experienced vs subject to. 

And also to tell us why you think moving ahead as the Prof suggests isn't helpful.

Neither of these things constitutes 'moving ahead' because that can only be done with the agreement of all parties - and you haven't agreed to do so.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Y'all maintain that A&E couldn't have experienced or have been subject to....same thing in my opinion, because they hadn't eaten the fruit. I agree. The word I pointed to earlier in this discussion basically says this is the interpretation.

 

The point being, y'all are implying that God and the snake are nothing but good and also saying that God is evil at the same time......and we are assuming that the snake was evil...aka Satan.

 

"Not eat the fruit or you will become like us". So again this implies to me that God and the snake were more that just "good" while in the garden.

 

Y'all need to clarify. You can't have it both ways.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

 

No.  They were not subject to both if all of creation was "good" (as defined by god), and the Garden was still perfect, and Adam and Eve were still innocent.  They could not have been subject to evil, since it did not exist; and they could not have been subject to good because they had no way of understanding what "good" meant (except as vaguely defined by god, i.e. creation was "good").

 

Then the temptation was good?????????????? WELL, WAS IT?

 

A lot of questions arise here.  Was it really "temptation?"  Did god include the possibility of temptation when he described everything as "good"?  Did god plan for the temptation?

 

However, this is nothing more than another bunny trail like we had with the serpent.  Obviously, the temptation was designed by god; and god declared it "good".

 

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress...

 

So you are saying it's good?

 

Ok, well then, are you saying the temptation itself is good and the results are not? Or are you saying that the sum total is good?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

True.  It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

 

 

You've introduced a new term into the discussion, End.

 

Before today you'd maintained that Adam and Eve 'experienced' good and evil before they ate the fruit.

 

Now you're saying they were 'subject to' both good and evil before they ate.

 

Could you please define what you mean by 'subject to'...?

.

.

.

Also, could you please explain to us why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set the conditions of Adam and Eve's test?

 

After all, on the day this thread began, you wrote...  "Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test."

 

This is confusing.  Could you please help us out here?

.

.

.

Please note that I'm not asking you to move ahead with us in a discussion of how God set up His test.  

Instead I'm asking you to define what you've written today - experienced vs subject to. 

And also to tell us why you think moving ahead as the Prof suggests isn't helpful.

Neither of these things constitutes 'moving ahead' because that can only be done with the agreement of all parties - and you haven't agreed to do so.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Y'all maintain that A&E couldn't have experienced or have been subject to....same thing in my opinion, because they hadn't eaten the fruit. I agree. The word I pointed to earlier in this discussion basically says this is the interpretation.

 

The point being, y'all are implying that God and the snake are nothing but good and also saying that God is evil at the same time......and we are assuming that the snake was evil...aka Satan.

 

"Not eat the fruit or you will become like us". So again this implies to me that God and the snake were more that just "good" while in the garden.

 

Y'all need to clarify. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

Thank you for answering the first part of my message, End.

 

Now can you please do so with the second.

.

.

.

Also, could you please explain to us why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set the conditions of Adam and Eve's test?

 

After all, on the day this thread began, you wrote...  "Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test."

 

This is confusing.  Could you please help us out here?

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Clarification 1: I have not said, or implied, that I think god is "good".  In fact, I have been arguing precisely the opposite.

 

Clarification 2:  I have not said, or implied, that I think the serpent is "evil".  In fact, I have only pointed out that everything, including the serpent, was created by god and declared by god to be "good".

 

Clarification 3:  I am not saying, or implying, that the temptation was "good", nor that the results were "good", nor that the sum total was "good".  god created everything, including the possibility of being tempted; and god declared that everything he created was "good".

 

Stop trying to derail this thread over the definitions of words, End3.  Finish your business with BAA and then we can discuss why Adam and Eve needed to experience both good and evil.

 

Or don't you want to?

[quinntar]

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

 

Maybe the message is not to know either, if that's the case then what's the middle path?

[quinntar]

 

 

 

True. It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

No. They were not subject to both if all of creation was "good" (as defined by god), and the Garden was still perfect, and Adam and Eve were still innocent. They could not have been subject to evil, since it did not exist; and they could not have been subject to good because they had no way of understanding what "good" meant (except as vaguely defined by god, i.e. creation was "good").

Then the temptation was good?????????????? WELL, WAS IT?

Nupo.

[quinntar]

 

 

 

True. It is helpful to understand how god set Adam and Eve up to fail before one can understand why god did it.

 

So, End3, are you in?

I'm not going to agree. As I pointed out, they could not weight good and evil but were certainly subject to both. You may move ahead if you wish. If you don't want to, no biggie.

You've introduced a new term into the discussion, End.

 

Before today you'd maintained that Adam and Eve 'experienced' good and evil before they ate the fruit.

 

Now you're saying they were 'subject to' both good and evil before they ate.

 

Could you please define what you mean by 'subject to'...?

.

.

.

Also, could you please explain to us why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set the conditions of Adam and Eve's test?

 

After all, on the day this thread began, you wrote... "Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test."

 

This is confusing. Could you please help us out here?

.

.

.

Please note that I'm not asking you to move ahead with us in a discussion of how God set up His test.

Instead I'm asking you to define what you've written today - experienced vs subject to.

And also to tell us why you think moving ahead as the Prof suggests isn't helpful.

Neither of these things constitutes 'moving ahead' because that can only be done with the agreement of all parties - and you haven't agreed to do so.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Y'all maintain that A&E couldn't have experienced or have been subject to....same thing in my opinion, because they hadn't eaten the fruit. I agree. The word I pointed to earlier in this discussion basically says this is the interpretation.

 

The point being, y'all are implying that God and the snake are nothing but good and also saying that God is evil at the same time......and we are assuming that the snake was evil...aka Satan.

 

"Not eat the fruit or you will become like us". So again this implies to me that God and the snake were more that just "good" while in the garden.

 

Y'all need to clarify. You can't have it both ways.

Well that's what thinking in terms of good & evil does, you paint your life in black and white.

 

There are no colours.

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

Picking up what the Prof said about the unfinished business between us, there are now two items.

 

Firstly, there's the matter of these three questions.

 

1.  Does the text say that God withheld the ability to weigh the consequences of their actions from Adam and Eve?

2.  Does the text say that God then set them a test which required them to use what He'd withheld from them?

3.  Does the text say that their eyes were opened to the consequences of their actions, only after they ate the fruit?

 

Secondly, there's the matter of your explanation as to why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set up the conditions of Adam and Eve's test.

The Prof and I are in agreement that until these four items are answered by you, this thread cannot move forward.

Please note that Duderonomy has also expressed his wish for you to engage with and answer me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

Clarification 1: I have not said, or implied, that I think god is "good".  In fact, I have been arguing precisely the opposite.

 

Clarification 2:  I have not said, or implied, that I think the serpent is "evil".  In fact, I have only pointed out that everything, including the serpent, was created by god and declared by god to be "good".

 

Clarification 3:  I am not saying, or implying, that the temptation was "good", nor that the results were "good", nor that the sum total was "good".  god created everything, including the possibility of being tempted; and god declared that everything he created was "good".

 

Stop trying to derail this thread over the definitions of words, End3.  Finish your business with BAA and then we can discuss why Adam and Eve needed to experience both good and evil.

 

Or don't you want to?

I'm not derailing anything.....it's part of the normal discourse. You have some thoughts where I'm not maintaining some rigid schedule that you and BAA are setting so I will understand per your points. That's asinine.

 

I see that you have your PERSONAL opinion about whether God and his creation was good and the timeframes are in question. This changes the discussion immensely.

 

Let's review:

 

God creates....it's good.

A&E are untainted....they are good.

God by definition interacts....that's good.

Y'all say that the snake is good....that's good.

You say that A&E can't fathom good until they eat the fruit. We agree.

 

Yet you are saying that God placing the entire scenario in action is evil.

 

Show me where on the timeline evil takes place....otherwise, you have no argument.

[Guest end3]

End,

 

Picking up what the Prof said about the unfinished business between us, there are now two items.

 

Firstly, there's the matter of these three questions.

 

1.  Does the text say that God withheld the ability to weigh the consequences of their actions from Adam and Eve?

2.  Does the text say that God then set them a test which required them to use what He'd withheld from them?

3.  Does the text say that their eyes were opened to the consequences of their actions, only after they ate the fruit?

 

Secondly, there's the matter of your explanation as to why you think it isn't helpful to understand how God set up the conditions of Adam and Eve's test.

The Prof and I are in agreement that until these four items are answered by you, this thread cannot move forward.

Please note that Duderonomy has also expressed his wish for you to engage with and answer me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Truthfully BAA, I don't want to carry on a discussion with you. You have 47 questions that you always need answered without explaining why they are relevant and then you hold the other party in contempt for not completing you survey.

 

THEN, if the other party makes a concession to one of your points, you are a complete dick.

 

I really don't want to hold a conversation like that. I would just as soon folks just told me what they were thinking and why and have a normal, across the table conversation. When you wish to do this, let me know and I will continue to converse.

 

Thanks.

[Guest end3]

 

I'm still stuck on the rationale behind knowing both.

Maybe the message is not to know either, if that's the case then what's the middle path?

 

Grace.

[sdelsolray]

Subjective grace.  Yeah...that explains it all.