God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining Haha, that's what we've been arguing about, I guess. Proof of God...


I suggest you guys read Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason." Pretty good stuff, I think, even though I am not a deist myself, and I don't agree with a part of the ending (I think it is blaming Jewish people for the things that the bible missed... a little confusing). But his ideas proving (or at least showing) why the bible is wrong are pretty interesting. I dont have a link for you guys, because I'm reading it in a book right now, I'll try and post it later.

Susipaisti:
I actually wasn't saying that the Bible was perfect and unaltered, I was just saying that since it hasn't been altered in about 1/2 it's written life, ~2300 years is absolutely amasing for anything like this, the idea that it is accurate to the original is not completely irrational.
As for Jesus, did the prophecies decide that he wouldn't have a tomb of his own? Did they determine that he would die from being pierced (the nails)? There are over 2000 prophecies to explain here. No single one is totally unreasonable, but all of them together present odds of 1:2.8?^480. That's not an exact number, but its in that order of magnitude. That many people have not walked the planet Earth in the sum total of all history.
The places were just meant to show that people have called things in the Bible wrong before only to find out that the Bible was right all along.
First off, the circumcision thing is in a whole different book, told to different people, and restricted to certain conditions, as I have already explained. Also, many of the commands in Leviticus, including unclean meat, are not talking about sin, but about ceremonial uncleanness. If it says, "Don't do it." it's a sin. If it says, "If you do this, you have to wait a while or purify yourself or something before you can offer sacrifices/be allowed into Jerusalem/something." that's not a sin. That is a rule God set up for the Jews. Some have health reasons, some have religious reasons, some are just there. Therefore, God didn't contradict himself when He told Luke to eat stuff, He was just clarifying, because Luke wasn't under the old Covenant anymore.
I have unshakable faith in God because He has proven Himself to me, many, many times. I cannot give you physical evidence, therefore I cannot prove it to you. If you saw a UFO land in your back yard and little gray men come out and ask for directions to Roswell, you would belive in UFOs. You would have proof. You couldn't prove it to anyone else, though. Does that make your proof any less real? Just because the round indentations from the landing pads in your back yard could have been faked?
Felinoid: :toofar:
I had expected better of you, though I did leave myself open. I was refering to the spiritual senses arguement. If a theory is presented, and there is nothing in human knowledge to prove or disprove it, then arguing based on human knowledge can only lead back to 'maybe', and not to any kind of final answer.
Saber:
I haven't read 'Age of Reason', though I'll keep my eyes out for it, but I would follow that up with 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis.

Edit: I hope I have cleared everything up. I'm tired of being misquoted, misunderstood, or asked to explain something over and over again. That's the third time I've explained circumcision in three days, all on the same board.

I bet that in another 1000 years time that (unless the world blows up - which is another thread) that Shakespeare will still be unaltered. Doesn't mean we should accept it as being a true reflection of events or the basis for religious beliefs.

I had expected better of you, though I did leave myself open. I was refering to the spiritual senses arguement. If a theory is presented, and there is nothing in human knowledge to prove or disprove it, then arguing based on human knowledge can only lead back to 'maybe', and not to any kind of final answer. Exactly; I pointed out where you had left yourself open so that you could close it, which you did quite nicely. TBH, I look back at that post and see a number of places that I hadn't realized were so adversarial-looking, and for that I apologize. :o

:hmm: Incidentally, I think those 'maybes' are where agnosticism comes from.

I think Harbourboy hit the nail on the head here. History, even if it has been unaltered, is not always correct. Many biases are always in play. If you ask anyone who has studied history they will tell you the same thing. Just because the bible has been unaltered in how ever many years it is, does not mean that it is a correct, detailed version of events from taht time period.

To get an accurate reading, one would need to compare a wider range of sources. In many cases, I'd imagin this would be near impossible, just due to the time factor. But in some cases it is certainly possible. The Chinese empire, for example, was around back then - and they certainly had forms of a written language. So regarding things like the great flood, that effected the entire world (if I'm remembering right, that is) for one to be certain that such events did occur, we would need to find evedence of such things in their records.

What I am saying, is that no historian will be ready to accept that something is just from one source of evidence - even less so if that source is a story form. It's similar to science, no experiment would be deemed acceptable without repeats done to it.

The Chinese empire, for example, was around back then - and they certainly had forms of a written language. So regarding things like the great flood, that effected the entire world (if I'm remembering right, that is) for one to be certain that such events did occur, we would need to find evedence of such things in their records.Exactly. There is evidence that the great flood was very localized. It affected the areas the Old Testament originates from. To the people of the time, that was the whole world, and that's what they decided to write their God to have said. "Wipe out the entire world and all in it."

I actually wasn't saying that the Bible was perfect and unaltered, I was just saying that since it hasn't been altered in about 1/2 it's written life, ~2300 years is absolutely amasing for anything like this, the idea that it is accurate to the original is not completely irrational.Reasonably accurate to its original *written* form, maybe. But for example the actions of Jesus weren't recorded by eyewitnesses; those too were passed down orally before anyone wrote them, albeit for a shorter time than in the case of the Old Testament. Tales can get pretty tall.

And even if the word itself stays unchanged, interpretations surely have been great and varied over the centuries. Still are.

As for the 2000+ prophecies, first of all that number means there should be on average two Jesus-related prophecies per page. I suppose I should investigate them a bit more, but quite a few of them do sound vague and far-fetched still. I mean, 'pierced?' It covers a wide variety of means - spears, daggers, sharpened poles etc. It's like prophecizing he would be 'bludgeoned' and as long as he gets stoned, clubbed, masticated by fists, crushed under a boulder - ka-ching, we have a winner. That's how prophecies work. Some people say Nostradamus accurately predicted WWI, WWII, cd's, whatever. Others see a bunch of vague rants that could mean a whole lot of things or nothing at all.

Also, many of the commands in Leviticus, including unclean meat, are not talking about sin, but about ceremonial uncleanness. If it says, "Don't do it." it's a sin. If it says, "If you do this, you have to wait a while or purify yourself or something before you can offer sacrifices/be allowed into Jerusalem/something." that's not a sin. That is a rule God set up for the Jews. Some have health reasons, some have religious reasons, some are just there.In Leviticus 11. there are actually two lists of animals - the first one (including pigs) is very strict, "do not eat these." The second one is "if you touch these you become unclean and must do x." If people read that whole chapter and pay attention to the wording, it's really strange that they should think "oh, this only applies to the Jews, not us." Or "it was tied to that specific time and place."

The forbidden sexual things, homosexuality among them, are dealt with in Leviticus 18. Whatever is said about them later in the New Testament, comes from the *apostles*, who are no more divine than the average guy. Wasn't it God and Jesus who were supposed to lay down the law, not the disciples later on? The whole reason the gay issue is still considered relevant and the pork thing isn't, seems to be that the disciples made their own interpretations. People. Not unlike the people of today. The New Covenant? Between Jesus and the people? With a few middle men, it seems.

And that Luke fellow. Couldn't anybody just claim that "God spoke this to me" and then dispute some old commandments? This whole thing of picking and choosing which parts of the Old Testament are universal and which parts only apply to Jews, for this and that reason, seems completely illogical to me, an attempt to explain the contradictions in a convenient way. The same thing's been done for ages - slavery was at a time justified by what the Old Testament says.

How come nobody says the forbidding of homosexual acts was just a purity issue among the Jewish people under those conditions?

I have unshakable faith in God because He has proven Himself to me, many, many times. I cannot give you physical evidence, therefore I cannot prove it to you.Stalemate, I guess. One could say the very same thing about Islam. Or, I know it's a mean thing to say, but a belief in a big blue elephant in a different dimension. The more I study the Bible and hear people's arguments in favor of it, the further my agnosticism starts to tilt towards atheism.

I really doubt Shakespere would survive a total societal upheaval unaltered. There are enough people that want to change it without such a catestrophic force.
Rotku:
The Great Flood in biblical times probably pre-dates writing. We don't really know when it occured because we don't know how many generations there were from Noah to Abraham, among other things. Also, are you saying you want to repeat the great flood? :D
Susipaisti: Actually, most of the Gospels were dictated by men who had actually seen these things themselves. As for the 2-per-page average, considering how dense books like Daniel are with messianic prophecies, that sounds about right. You're looking at a prophecy for every other sentence or so there.
Also, as I said, plenty of people fulfilled one or two or even a dozen of these prophecies, but no one else fulfilled all of them, or even came close. And don't even bring Nostradamus into this, that's as much prophecy as the lunch my cat chucked up is. There are books upon books explaining all about how Nostradamus is BS.

There are books upon books explaining all about how the Bible is BS.

There are books upon books explaining all about how to meet aliens.

Something I heard on Drawn Together last night:
"But the Bible says -"
"Yeah, the Bible says a lot of things; and not very clearly." :lol:

I'll take your word for the number of prophecies, NOG, but not their significance.

The point with bringing up Nostradamus was that some people (myself included) believe his "prophecies" are BS, while others steadfastly believe in them, and that is also the case with biblical prophecies: others are certain they've accurately predicted something, others view them as meaningless, vague rantings.

Felinoid: Love the quote!

About the great flood...I've been under the impression that it has been scientifically proven that there was one roughly around the time the Old Testament is believed to have been written, but it was localized around the biblical areas. It's not just a case of it having been documented somewhere, it's been proven by geologic research or something.

I used to think of myself as an atheist. But that was until I found that most athiests push there beliefs on people as badly as fundamentalists.

Benan - how does that stop you from being an atheist? Actually, how can it stop you from being an atheist - unless your opinions on life the universe and everything can be swayed my something as meaningless as what other people who also happen to be atheists do?

The great flood is a rather confusing issue. There was a massive flood around 3000? BC when a natural barrier between the Mediteranian and one of the large bodies of water in that region, which wasn't a body of water beforehand, collapsed and permanently flooded a large number of cities, but this was hardly the known world at the time and no rain was associated with it. Also, the oldest record of a "Great Flood", the Babylonian myth of Gilgamesh, predates this event.
Also, scientists have also 'proven' that, until ~15000 BC, there was a shell of water in low-earth orbit. Something caused it to collapse, causing drastic ammounts of rain world wide. Geneticists have found, using mitochondrial DNA, that, at roughly the same time, the global population of humans was reduced to less than 1000! We don't know how much less, but this may well have been the Great Flood of the Bible. Or it could have been something completely different, we really don't know.

The Great Flood of the Bible says the human population was reduced to about 6 or 8 people -- right? Far short of 1,000, I'd say. Are you not a Biblical literalist, NOG?

I highly recommend everybody read the First letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11 - especially those who condemn homosexuality based on what apostle Paul has said. Great stuff. It says the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. It goes on to say that if a woman doesn't cover her head when praying, she is dishonoring her head, and it is the same as having her hair cut off. A woman must cover her head when praying, but a man doesn't, because he is the image of God and reflects His honor. A woman reflects the man's honor. Man hasn't been created of woman but the other way around, and man wasn't created for the woman but woman was created for man.

Also as a curiosity, it mentions that nature teaches us that having long hair is disgraceful for a man.

This book just gets better and better the more I study it...

Hmm, I think I have found a better definiton of me: a nihilistic atheist. I don't believe in any religion (thus nihilistic), but I'm not completely nihilistic, in the sense that I don't abandon morals, or the definition of life, etc.

I don't believe in God, but I also do not believe in any other religion. So, I am slightly nihilistic, but not even close to being a complete nihilist. Although, nihilist sounds cooler than atheist.


And by the way, how would you define a nihilist? I looked it up on dictionary.com and wikipedia, and I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=nihilist

Don't confuse atheism as some sort of philosophy. Atheist simply means "one who doesn't believe in any gods." A theist, conversely, is one who belives in gods or a single god.

You shouldn't assume that an atheist is amoral, immoral, or even non-religious. There are religiouns which are atheistic (Buddhism, Taoism, et. al.) and there are theists who would call themselves non-religious.

Nihilism, existentialism, solopsism and the like are philosophies and are unrelated to atheism, though it's safe to assume that most existentialists are atheists. But let's not confuse the two.

No, I don't confuse the two... I do not assume that an atheist is amorl, immoral, etc.

However, I, personally, am non-religious. I don't believe in anything. That is why I said perhaps I was a nihilistic atheist.

Whomever:
Ok, the Bible is the only text known to have survived such an extensive period of time unaltered, it said that Noah, his wife, their children, their children's spouses, and all their decendants, when Noah was over 100 years old, survived on the Arc. Considering families at the time averaged around 12 children, that sounds closer to 40 to 100 people, also the report said less than 1,000 people, we couldn't get any more detailed than that. Its kind of like carbon dating only being accurate if the sample is a certain age or older, the tests can tell it's less than that, but not by how much.
Susipaisti:
When reading any of Paul's letters to the churchs, you really have to understand the society he was writing to. Many of the things he tells them to do/not to do, he does so for a reason specific to them and them only, which is why he doesn't tell anyone else to do it. I don't know the details in this case, I'll have to do some research, but I'll bet I Corinthians is the same.

When reading any of Paul's letters to the churchs, you really have to understand the society he was writing to.This is the argument very often used when one runs into something unpleasant in a religious text. It's always divine truth until one finds something unagreeable in it, then it becomes tied to a specific time and place. Then people are picking and choosing which parts are still relevant and which aren't. Applying some new moral standards to the old texts that were a moment ago claimed to *be* moral itself.

People could just as easily pick and choose differently. The ban on homosexuality could be considered an outdated hygiene thing, and that universal love overrides it. The Catholic church could allow women to be priests, deciding like protestants (at least in some places) have - that the rules of who can be a priest and how a priest must live are tied to a specific time.

The reason I brought out that Bible section is that some religious people like to forbid or allow things that Jesus did not even speak of, based on what apostle Paul or some other disciple said later on. Yet the apostles said a great many things that are not upheld and revered by those same Christians. Hence, "Apostle Paul said so" is not a very solid argument.

Ok, taking anything, especially the Bible, out of context is bad. Argueing that context is an unimportant detail that can be ignored is even worse. This is especially true when you are reading a letter written to a specific group of people.
And don't even get me started on priests. The only thing the Bible says about priests is that they must be male Levites, and that's the OT. I haven't a clue where Catholics got their priests from.
Also, realize that when Paul says "God told me," he means some thing VERY different from when he says "God didn't tell me, but I think and He hasn't corrected me yet." (which does happen)
You might as well take the quote "God is dead." (biblical) and ignore that it actually says, "The fool says in his heart, 'God is dead.'" because it's context.

Ok, taking anything, especially the Bible, out of context is bad. Argueing that context is an unimportant detail that can be ignored is even worse.I agree. If you look at what Paul says in that Bible passage about the relations between men and women, you can always say it was just the way of the times that the society was male-dominant. But you could use the same kind of rationalizations to any part of the Bible, explain away everything except the most basic parts (love God, treat others like you wish to be treated yourself). This was done to the purity rules of the Old Testament, and it could be done to other things too. Many Christians, churches and communities have made quite different judgement calls over the years as to the context of various parts.

You might as well take the quote "God is dead." (biblical) and ignore that it actually says, "The fool says in his heart, 'God is dead.'" because it's context.Well that would be pretty absurd. I sure hope you're not implying bringing up the Corinthians letter was similar to that. I haven't read the entire letter, but several chapters anyway - just so I would know what I'm talking about.

By the way, if the book needs so much interpretation and context and can't be taken "as is" - and therefore people mostly make their own decisions about its contents in accordance with the times - can the book really be used as an authority?

There are large portions of the new testament for which you need an understanding of the society they were written in and to. This does not in any way invalidate the texts, but rather suggests that people should actually learn before trying to interpret it themselves. The recent (and maybe American) tendancy to do everything quick and on the surface is what has lead to so many misunderstandings.
As for the old testaments, there's a lot you need to know in order to really understand whats going on, but this doesn't invalidate anything.
The "God is dead." bit was an example to people who don't understand the importance of context. You have no idea how many people I see every day that think a random quote taken entirely out of context ammounts to a decent arguement. Or, at least, I hope you have no idea. No one should have to suffer such consistent stupidity.

Okay, here's the argument about context: All or nothing. Either you can look at the Bible as something which was written for people hundreds of years ago and does not apply to "modern man", or you can claim that ALL the rules are just as true today as they were when they are written. You cannot simply pick and choose what you do not like and claim to be following it. Saying that some things no longer apply because of their context, but others do despite their context, is simply ridiculous.

If you're not willing to claim the Bible as a whole, then don't quote any of it as truth, and simply follow common sense. Most of the things in the Bible were based off of that, including what was right and wrong for people of that time, so let the guiding principle of the Bible be your guide, not an old book that was primarily a go-between for gullible people and sense. It's overdue for a re-writing, IMO.

Follow the Spirit, not the Word. - Felinoid

Beautifully stated, Fel. You can't pick out parts as they suit your cause, and perhaps abandon them in years to come because they do not apply to the current day anymore...

It's overdue for a re-writing, IMO.And what if the re-write still condemns homosexuality and some other things that some want legitimized?

And what if the re-write still condemns homosexuality and some other things that some want legitimized? That's absolutely fine; just don't expect your little cult to thrive well in the centuries to come. :p I imagine a number of people will leave and form their own version of Christianity that isn't so harsh. Gay christians, for example. (They're out there. :mommy: )

I'm not saying anything should be viewed without context, especially not in spite of it, but viewing something in context doesn't mean you throw it out. All it means is that you understand the meaning of what was written. The VAST majority of the Bible is applicable today if you understand the context it was written in. If you don't you'll try to apply some things that you shouldn't, ignore things that you should, and totally misunderstand what's left. This is part of what happened to the Catholic church in the middle ages.
The general rule of thumb, or rule period, is to get the context of anything you're using as a source for anything. If you're citing research data, find out the conditions the research was done under. If a survey of american gun owners only covers 100 people, it's probably not that accurate. If it covers 10,000 but only asks loaded questions, its still not accurate.

Okay, so how would you view the things Paul says about the relations between men and women in the letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11? Does it still apply - if so, why, and if not, why not? And use the same kind of reasoning to examine what he says about homosexuality (I think it's in Corinthians as well).

If those "the head of every woman is the man" -parts don't apply anymore, what is the reason? That times have changed, the society has changed? Then what is the reason the parts about homosexuality still apply (if they do)? That the times haven't changed?

I agree that the context of things is an important issue, but it can easily be used as a loophole to dodge any old rule and make whatever you wish of the faith, because a lot of it is subject to interpretation.

On another subject: I know this was dealt with earlier, but about the prohecies about Christ... It should be noted that the Jewish people, who firmly believe in the Old Testament, don't think Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. So it can't be all that clear that he did, really.

*hasn't read any other posts, just title*

yes, i am a fellow athiest. I hate how peoples fear of death makes them sacrifice their lives following some image of a "god" or something like that for hope of an afterlife.

Historically speaking, different parts of the Bible were written at different times; the author of the book of Genesis was not the author of the book of Luke. I don't see why you can't decide chapter X of book Y is good stuff to live your by but chapter A of book B is information you don't agree with.

The problem, it seems, is the authority of the Bible. If we accept it as "God's book," then we have to take it as a whole (because God's hand guided the writing and selection of the books). But authority has been taken from the Bible. Few people today live their lives strictly according to a Biblical verse.

But I find the idea of a "re-write" of the Bible pretty hilarious.

Thessolonica and Corinth, in the time of Paul, were both filled with prostitutes, mainly from major roman temples in the areas. Paul tells both cities various things about women dressing modestly, respecting authority, and submitting themselves to their husbands because these are the exact things the non-christian women didn't do. Its kind of like smoking here at ODU.
If I were to say that smoking was a sin, and christians shouldn't even be suspected of it, I would tell christians not to hang out in front of the Batten Arts and Letters building. This is not because BAL is a bad place, or hanging out is a sin, but because that is where smokers go to smoke, and if they hung out there, people would think they smoked. In the same way, Paul wanted everyone in Corinth to know that christians were different, that they didn't live by the social norm, so he told them to act differently from the major sources of sin in the area.
I'm not sure what the exact reference to homosexuality you are refering to is, but homosexuality was viewed in one of two categories. The romans and greeks thought there was nothing wrong with it, the Jews and Samaritans said there was something very wrong with it. The new testament, in several places, agrees with the Jews and Samaritans.

I hate how peoples fear of death makes them sacrifice their lives following some image of a "god" or something like that for hope of an afterlife Precisely. Although, being an atheist, shouldn't we (I am one as well) fear dying, because we don't believe we go anywhere?

For me, there is no fear of dying (although, yes, some deaths are quite painful). We rot in the ground. Oh well.

Thessolonica and Corinth, in the time of Paul, were both filled with prostitutes, mainly from major roman temples in the areas. Paul tells both cities various things about women dressing modestly, respecting authority, and submitting themselves to their husbands because these are the exact things the non-christian women didn't do.Well, prostitution and pornography run rampant in the western society of today, and fashion is quite skimpy... Do Paul's words apply to the current situation? Dressing modestly, respecting authority, and submitting to husbands would still seem like very christian things to do. They seem applicable today, yet they are not so vigorously upheld anymore, while many other things are.

Historically speaking, different parts of the Bible were written at different times; the author of the book of Genesis was not the author of the book of Luke. I don't see why you can't decide chapter X of book Y is good stuff to live your by but chapter A of book B is information you don't agree with.
The problem, it seems, is the authority of the Bible.It's not so much the picking and choosing that I have a problem with, but the picking and choosing combined with claiming the book is the word of God. The authority. Most of the different books in the Bible claim to originate from divine revelations, witnessing miracles and such. If you believe in such things, it's pretty arrogant to decide some part is not agreeable and another is.

With the pig example that I keep going back to, my guess is that the reasons for banning it were practical - pork that isn't cooked properly can be a lot more dangerous than for example cows. This is probably why muslims forbade it as well. But the Bible says it is a command from God, don't eat it, it's filthy. You can dissect, rationalazise and dispute almost any supposed command from God, if you start interpreting and puzzling out the circumstances and practical reasons for each command. And there lies the problem in picking and choosing. If you go down that road, you can't really use the book as an authority to judge things by anymore. You have to use your own judgement, your own morals and common sense. At that point, what do you need the book for at all?

There are parts in the Bible that I fully agree on - "treat others like you wish to be treated" is a great idea. But it doesn't make the book holy in my eyes. And if I don't think the book is holy, it doesn't mean I can't agree with some of the things it suggests.

There are a lot of parallels between modern society and roman society. Prostitution is not accepted to nearly the same degree, but still. If you go into any good church today, people will be preaching that we need to do all those things you mentioned. Any church who accepts it is not a good church, and before I get blasted for that, let me explain. A good institution of any religion is one that supports the tennets of that religion as they should be. If it does not, it is not a good example of that religion. If it distorts them in any way, it has problems. Also, remember that while God is perfect, people are not. You will never find a perfect christian or a perfect church, we all makes mistakes.

Wouldn't God much rather you go out and do the good tasks, instead of wasting 1 to 2 hours a day (or week, depending) praying to him? If is he omnipotent and omniscient, he knows you worship him. I'm sure he'd rather see results of his morals.

My impression of worship services is more instructional, on how better to live and how better to do good. I can't speak for other faiths, but in mine, there is the Sacrement Meeting, where after a bit of ritual, there are speakers, usually from the congregation, who've been given an assigned topic to research ans speak on briefly. Usually 2 to 4 such speakers talk on any given sunday.

There are also a couple other meetings where the primary function is education (one doctrinal, one more practical). Some members become involved in other meetings designed to facilitate good works (I'm on two such committees.)

Ah but Saber, we are not to "labor" on the Sabbath, even if it is "good" works, it's work nonetheless. ;)

Of course, laboring (to help the poor) on the Sabbath is one of the things that got Jesus in so much trouble. Go figure.

So Sunday is a designated "lazy" day? :lol: ;) I guess if God rested on the seventh day, we should follow his example, huh? Nevermind that crunching numbers isn't quite as strenuous as, say, creating a universe. :shake: I could go on, but I'm already starting to feel glares for my poor attempts at jokes. :rolling:

Yeah, Fel, You've had better jokes...

Basically, We take a day out of the week to rest, worship and reflect on how we can better live during the next six days...

Who ever said prayer and work were mutually exclusive? I'm takling to God all the time. Whenever something comes to mind, He's the first one I turn to. You don't have to close your eyes or bow your head or clasp your hands to pray.
As for services, they serve the spirit much the way food serves the body. We all need time to relax and recouperate. This is what the sabbath is for. If you, like many americans, have leasure time anyway, the sabbath doesn't all need to be on the same day.
Worship and fellowship are needed to keep people from getting burnt out.