A challenge: debate the issue of religion with yours truly

Page 7 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

UnLoser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 655

28 Apr 2012, 3:38 pm

This is an interesting thread. It's too bad I don't have enough knowledge to join in the discussion myself.

American wrote:
My argument is that the Christian God is not logically necessarily or possible and thus doesn't exist. If you except the rules of logic, namely indirect proofs, then I can actually prove that the Christian God cannot exist.


I'd like to hear you go into more detail on this, for curiosity's sake.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

29 Apr 2012, 4:35 pm

Lukecash12 wrote:
8. That Paul, a skeptic and persecutor, was converted, is supported by the following: The principle of embarrassment basically guarantees that he sanctioned and witnessed the persecution of Christians, as an opponent and skeptic, yet he claimed to have an encounter with Christ and underwent a variety of persecutions according to himself, Acts, Clement, Polycarp, and Tertullian (who mentions his being beheaded in Rome).
Do you know if any Anatolian writings on shamanistic peoples, specifically followers of Tengri, survive from around the time of Paul the Apostle?

What would have been key elements in the education of a Pharisee? Particularly one who lived in Tarsus, which was a hip college town at the time.

What were the functions of a Pharisee in Jewish culture?

Quote:
11. That the Christian church was established and grew, is supported by the following: the epistles of the NT were addressed to locations all around Judea, Tacitus and many other Greek and Roman authors record their growth, and this is corroborated by the early church fathers up until Christianity became the official religion of Rome.
How do you think Pagan Rome's relationship with the Parthians might have affected the formative years of Christianity? Do you see Zoroastrian influences in Christianity?

Quote:
First, I was not referring to the idea that they all had the same subjective vision at exactly the same time. I was focusing more on the idea that several different people, with psychological profiles, dispositions, and personalities, that were fairly distinct from one another, all being presumably healthy minded, saw something that disagreed with their normal Jewish theology (making hallucinative projection less likely). Maybe it is less relevant to your own criticism there, but then again you aren't David Hume. Such criticisms were quite prevalent in the 19th century, and they have been gaining traction again, because of a few radical scholars and a lot of pseudo scholars and intellects who don't understand historical methodology and the medical issue of subjective visions.
I'm an amateur scholar, but I think I do fairly well. We could start with the Gospel of Mark if you wish.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

03 May 2012, 6:54 am

01001011 wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
3) You've simply implicated a number of wants and desires there, that don't necessarily represent what a deity would want. And over arbitrary issues, like evolutionary perfection. Of what relevance is evolutionary perfection, when you are thinking about, say, what is morally exemplary, what is maximally excellent, what is most pleasurable, etc.? And who is to say that the evolutionary design doesn't meet it's intended ends perfectly? Does God have a good reason not to want imperfection? Your idea of perfection here is vague.


What about your idea of perfection? Based on what you say we are living in the 'best possible world'? You are the one who begins uttering nonsense gibberish.


1. I think the word "perfection" is too non-descript on it's own to express anything. Given the proper context, though, I would say that depending on the type of expression (you know: allegory, colloquialism, etc.), it can mean that something fits perfectly with the ideal(s) of the beholder, that it is an exact or near exact fit with some pattern, or maybe perfection is a Platonic Form? If you're familiar with the Forms, you might see how apt of a label that could be, depending on how one understands "perfection".

Suffice to say, that unless you care to hash the issue out, I emphasize that I was critiquing my interlocutor, mr. AG. He made some references to perfection when it comes to God's design, and didn't establish his view of perfection and what about those examples he mentioned, happens to relate to perfection.

2. "Based on what"? Based on this: If it happens to be true, that there is a tri-omni God like that of orthodox Christendom, then it is necessarily true that this (the universe, or version of the universe, that we are experiencing) is the best possible scenario, as regards the relationship between evil and good, suffering and joy, etc. Let me restate it in a different, more explanatory way: if it happens to be the case that there is a tri-omni God, then of course our state of affairs must be compatible with it. Of all the possible permutations, combinations, and imaginations, it would seem that we are experiencing the best possible scenario, that is: if there is a tri-omni God.

3. As for your last sentence there, I'm not sure what you mean. Modal arguments, if used correctly and with strict form, couldn't be more clear. Unless some definitions are misunderstood, which can often be the case, a modal argument is just as clear as a simple algebraic equation.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

03 May 2012, 8:59 am

Luke, if you are wondering why I am asking about Anatolian writings, from the time of Paul, pertaining to shamanistic cultures related Gok Tanri, I have this theory that Paul's outlook on Christianity might have been influenced by the beliefs and mores of these ancient Turkic religions. However, if pharisees of the time period were being taught a prejudicial or negative outlook on them, this might not hold water as well as I had thought. I am assuming that a law/divinity student, during this time period, would have been educated at least somewhat in religions that were observed in neighboring cultures.

And I assume that you know more about this sort of thing than I do, since it sounds like you are a bit of a divinity student. Presumably, you have access to resources that I wouldn't know how to look for.

Please don't think that I'm hostile. I do try to make a point of being nice about religion because I've been trying to overcome a history of bitter relations with my father. He's affiliated with a UMC Methodist church, and he and my mother are very active members of the congregation. It helps our relations significantly for me to be to be tolerant of their religion. Therefore, I don't have a particularly antagonistic or nasty outlook on religion, compared to some people.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

03 May 2012, 9:18 am

@Mr. Delaney:

I'm very sorry it's taken me this long to get back to you. I've limited access to the internet this week, while I visit with and babysit for a family member this week, out of town. If I had access to my lexicons and translinear text rendering software, as well as my books and online publications, I would answer all of your material. The issues that you raised are issues that I am very interested in.

But, to at least give you some of my opinions for the time being:

1. As regards the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis, I don't find such mental gymnastics necessary. That is because I don't find the notion that the whole world was flooded, to be a notion supported by the text.

2. That there are stories similar to that found in Genesis, does not necessarily suggest syncretism to me. It suggests Semitic thinking, is all. That they share in Semitic thinking, does not mean that their theology is the same. I would assert that all three accounts are different. As for them sharing some common traditional roots, I think that is definitely plausible, even positively indicated.

None of this is problematic for me, in terms of Christian belief. That being because I view Genesis in strictly theological terms. Because yom (Hebrew for a day cycle) appears before there is even a yom to be had, and because of some other such considerations, I don't see anything of a scientific intent in the Creation account. It seems neither natural to the text, nor natural to Semitic thinking, to make a scientific account of creation. I'll be elaborating on Semitic thought and the text in Hebrew, next week.

3. I'd be interested in seeing the hypothesis once you've finished it. As for now, I don't know what to think. Not much to go off of there.

4. For starters, that Paul was tormented by a "thorn" is much too vague to support the idea of a recurring migraine ailment. Migraines don't really account for a vision/hallucination either, unless you've seen such a case corroborated in a medical journal. I might also ask how this all fits in with the fact that Paul was previously opposed to Christian belief.

5. Yes, I would tend to agree with you there, when it comes to which groups were the most dynamic, and culturally promulgating. From the Christian point of view, Israel is extremely important when it comes to theology, and theology being expressed through history. But that's just the Judeo-Christian view of history. When it comes to who the big historical players were, Israel was kind of a blip.

6. Right. The people of Israel lived under an actual, working legal system. It wasn't just smoke and mirrors.

7. So do I.

8. In your statements there at the end, I wonder if what you mean to say, is that maybe I think the resurrection is a matter of design? As in, part of the original act of Creation? While I do think, in the UOD of Christian thinking, that there may be theological implications there in the Creation event, the view I support of the resurrection is that it was a divine intervention, not a divine design (and I mean "design" in the aforementioned sense of Creation).


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

03 May 2012, 9:21 am

William, Looking at the Pauline writings in the Bible I see a little bit of influence from the stoics and they in turn my have been influenced by Hermeticsm. We know a lot of greek philosophers were in what is now Turkey, and that was Paul spent a lot of time there. Why do you think he was influenced by Gok Tanri?

I once found a paper which showed that the first half of Romans Ch.6 is almost identical to part of the Stoic Senaca's writing. Unfortunately I cannot find it again.

Luke, sorry if this is leading off topic.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

03 May 2012, 9:25 am

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Luke, if you are wondering why I am asking about Anatolian writings, from the time of Paul, pertaining to shamanistic cultures related Gok Tanri, I have this theory that Paul's outlook on Christianity might have been influenced by the beliefs and mores of these ancient Turkic religions. However, if pharisees of the time period were being taught a prejudicial or negative outlook on them, this might not hold water as well as I had thought. I am assuming that a law/divinity student, during this time period, would have been educated at least somewhat in religions that were observed in neighboring cultures.

And I assume that you know more about this sort of thing than I do, since it sounds like you are a bit of a divinity student. Presumably, you have access to resources that I wouldn't know how to look for.

Please don't think that I'm hostile. I do try to make a point of being nice about religion because I've been trying to overcome a history of bitter relations with my father. He's affiliated with a UMC Methodist church, and he and my mother are very active members of the congregation. It helps our relations significantly for me to be to be tolerant of their religion. Therefore, I don't have a particularly antagonistic or nasty outlook on religion, compared to some people.


I haven't found you very antagonistic, Mr. Delaney. Trust me, in that I'm used to some pretty antagonistic people, because of my work in apologetics.

As for Paul's views of other religions around him: Pharisaic Judaism was the precursory sect to Rabbinic Judaism (as in: Talmuddic Judaism). Read the Tannaitic tract of the Talmud (the earliest tract which represents this period, as well as later times), which is publicly available, and I'm sure you'll find enough examples of exclusivist thinking from this group that it will become evident that it would have been reprehensible to Paul to adopt ideas from neighboring religions.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

03 May 2012, 9:38 am

It would seem that Paul was not trained in greek philosophy to understand Senaca's finer points.

Vining on Paul and Senaca



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

03 May 2012, 9:39 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
Let me restate it in a different, more explanatory way: if it happens to be the case that there is a tri-omni God, then of course our state of affairs must be compatible with it. Of all the possible permutations, combinations, and imaginations, it would seem that we are experiencing the best possible scenario, that is: if there is a tri-omni God.

It goes back to the question how do you define tri-omni. Base on what do you claim or judge if anything is tri-omni or not? In particular, when talking about about 'good' or 'bad', you need a standard of 'good' to begin with (and I don't believe any such non-trivial objective standard exists).

Without proper definition, your 'tri-onmi being creates 'best' possible world' is just as vague as a 'perfection', as you admitted. In this sense I agree with your objection to AG, but the same objection comes back to you to a even greater degree, because we have NO idea how a 'tri-onmi' being ought to behave.



Last edited by 01001011 on 03 May 2012, 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

03 May 2012, 9:42 am

Grebels wrote:
William, Looking at the Pauline writings in the Bible I see a little bit of influence from the stoics and they in turn my have been influenced by Hermeticsm. We know a lot of greek philosophers were in what is now Turkey, and that was Paul spent a lot of time there. Why do you think he was influenced by Gok Tanri?

I once found a paper which showed that the first half of Romans Ch.6 is almost identical to part of the Stoic Senaca's writing. Unfortunately I cannot find it again.

Luke, sorry if this is leading off topic.
Well, it's very tenuous, but I understand that followers of Gok Tanri hold the belief that being stricken with an illness, particularly one such as "the sacred disease" (epilepsy), is a sign that one has been called upon to live a spiritual life, particularly to become a shaman. Now, because of Paul was educated in Anatolia, he might have been exposed to this idea, either in his studies or in his observations of local tribespeople.

However, I don't know a damn thing about how intellectuals in Tarsus actually interacted with the followers of these shamanistic religions. I don't know whether relations were generally hostile, peaceful or simply tolerant. It's something that I haven't had the time or resources to delve into.

And refer to the Conversion of Paul in Acts, for one instance. Also, refer to Paul's "thorn" in 2 Corinthians 12. It sounds like he suffered from severe migraines, epilepsy or both.

The thing is, if I could support the idea that Paul might have been influenced by the method shamanistic religions had for choosing shamans, that would help explain why Paul felt that his illness meant that he was being called upon to live a spiritual life.

Also, there is a strong association between temporal lobe epilepsy and tending to write compulsively and at great length.

And it's a rare symptom of an epileptic attack to actually hear a voice calling out your name, as Paul did.



Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

03 May 2012, 9:52 am

William, it would be interesting to know if epilepsy can connect with spiritual experience. I can well imagine that various ilnesses were seen in a far different light in those days. However, it is not a thing I know about. However, compulsive writing could apply to people with Asperger's. Well, I mean what are we all doing here for a start.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

03 May 2012, 11:21 am

Grebels wrote:
William, it would be interesting to know if epilepsy can connect with spiritual experience. I can well imagine that various ilnesses were seen in a far different light in those days. However, it is not a thing I know about. However, compulsive writing could apply to people with Asperger's. Well, I mean what are we all doing here for a start.
Oh, the "sacred disease" was the bane of the Hippocratic writers' existence. They hated it. They associated it with medicine men, quack doctors and heaven knows what else. There was a time when legitimate medicine barely even got any respect, and it made the doctors...the real doctors...of the time period furious. But, anyway, they knew of epilepsy, and there was so much nonsense claptrap about it, it served as a persistent headache.

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html

"It is thus with regard to the disease called Sacred: it appears to me to be nowise more divine nor more sacred than other diseases, but has a natural cause from the originates like other affections. Men regard its nature and cause as divine from ignorance and wonder, because it is not at all like to other diseases. And this notion of its divinity is kept up by their inability to comprehend it, and the simplicity of the mode by which it is cured, for men are freed from it by purifications and incantations. But if it is reckoned divine because it is wonderful, instead of one there are many diseases which would be sacred; for, as I will show, there are others no less wonderful and prodigious, which nobody imagines to be sacred. The quotidian, tertian, and quartan fevers, seem to me no less sacred and divine in their origin than this disease, although they are not reckoned so wonderful. And I see men become mad and demented from no manifest cause, and at the same time doing many things out of place; and I have known many persons in sleep groaning and crying out, some in a state of suffocation, some jumping up and fleeing out of doors, and deprived of their reason until they awaken, and afterward becoming well and rational as before, although they be pale and weak; and this will happen not once but frequently. And there are many and various things of the like kind, which it would be tedious to state particularly.

They who first referred this malady to the gods appear to me to have been just such persons as the conjurors, purificators, mountebanks, and charlatans now are, who give themselves out for being excessively religious, and as knowing more than other people. Such persons, then, using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to of their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the disease is sacred, adding suitable reasons for this opinion, they have instituted a mode of treatment which is safe for themselves, namely, by applying purifications and incantations, and enforcing abstinence from baths and many articles of food which are unwholesome to men in diseases. Of sea substances, the surmullet, the blacktail, the mullet, and the eel; for these are the fishes most to be guarded against. And of fleshes, those of the goat, the stag, the sow, and the dog: for these are the kinds of flesh which are aptest to disorder the bowels. Of fowls, the cock, the turtle, and the bustard, and such others as are reckoned to be particularly strong. And of potherbs, mint, garlic, and onions; for what is acrid does not agree with a weak person. And they forbid to have a black robe, because black is expressive of death; and to sleep on a goat's skin, or to wear it, and to put one foot upon another, or one hand upon another; for all these things are held to be hindrances to the cure. All these they enjoin with reference to its divinity, as if possessed of more knowledge, and announcing beforehand other causes so that if the person should recover, theirs would be the honor and credit; and if he should die, they would have a certain defense, as if the gods, and not they, were to blame, seeing they had administered nothing either to eat or drink as medicines, nor had overheated him with baths, so as to prove the cause of what had happened. But I am of opinion that (if this were true) none of the Libyans, who live in the interior, would be free from this disease, since they all sleep on goats' skins, and live upon goats' flesh; neither have they couch, robe, nor shoe that is not made of goat's skin, for they have no other herds but goats and oxen. But if these things, when administered in food, aggravate the disease, and if it be cured by abstinence from them, godhead is not the cause at all; nor will purifications be of any avail, but it is the food which is beneficial and prejudicial, and the influence of the divinity vanishes."


The Hippocratic writers created their works specifically and overtly to protect against quack medicine, which pissed them off to no end. They absolutely hated it. They busted their balls to try to put together an adequate system of medicine, yet they kept losing business to charismatic witch doctors.

And they really were serious about what they did. Read their writings, here, on epidemics:

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/epidemics.1.i.html

These were smart, educated guys. They knew what they were doing, and they slaved to perfect their art. Therefore, you can imagine how much it enraged them to have their art co-opted by charlatans and rambling madmen. It would drive a nun to murder.

But, anyway, the idea that certain illnesses are of a divine nature is a really really old idea. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily have to have come from the followers of Gok Tanri. The reason I think it might is that Tengriism was very popular among the Huns and other Turkic people's, so it would stand to reason if there were evidence of Tengriist influences in Paul's ideas.

Tarsus wasn't just some ancient city that lived isolated from other cultures and held a lot of superstitious beliefs and had politics centered around temple intrigues, but they were actually very much a cosmopolitan culture. They were a center of learning and commerce. They were in many ways a lot like a modern city, in how people lived and cooperated with each other. These were extremely educated people, especially for their day.

However, the biggest hole in the theory of Tengriist influences is that the city of Tarsus had been practicing Olympianism for centuries. Therefore, although I once felt very strongly about my hypothesis, it is looking increasingly shaky, the more I learn about the history of that particular region.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

03 May 2012, 8:12 pm

01001011 wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
Let me restate it in a different, more explanatory way: if it happens to be the case that there is a tri-omni God, then of course our state of affairs must be compatible with it. Of all the possible permutations, combinations, and imaginations, it would seem that we are experiencing the best possible scenario, that is: if there is a tri-omni God.

It goes back to the question how do you define tri-omni. Base on what do you claim or judge if anything is tri-omni or not? In particular, when talking about about 'good' or 'bad', you need a standard of 'good' to begin with (and I don't believe any such non-trivial objective standard exists).

Without proper definition, your 'tri-onmi being creates 'best' possible world' is just as vague as a 'perfection', as you admitted. In this sense I agree with your objection to AG, but the same objection comes back to you to a even greater degree, because we have NO idea how a 'tri-onmi' being ought to behave.


1. We do have something of an idea as to how a tri-omni God would behave, because being tri-omni means He is fully knowledgable, fully capable, and fully benevolent. For Him to be acting in accordance with His nature necessitates this being the best possible scenario. All I assume is that a tri-omni being would act in accordance with it's own nature.

2. The "best possible world" that I refer to, is a possible world in which the relationship between good and evil is the most ideal. That is plenty distinct. Of all the possible worlds, this one must have the most good in comparison to evil, if it's creator is indeed a tri-omni deity. As for defining "good' and "evil", in this context, we involve ourselves in theology. Because it's a theological issue, we maybe ought to ask what it is that God deems "good' or "evil".


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

04 May 2012, 9:40 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
1. We do have something of an idea as to how a tri-omni God would behave, because being tri-omni means He is fully knowledgable, fully capable, and fully benevolent. For Him to be acting in accordance with His nature necessitates this being the best possible scenario. All I assume is that a tri-omni being would act in accordance with it's own nature.

You have not come up with any non-trivial standard of 'good' or 'evil' to begin with. Therefore your 'fully benevolent' god is complete nonsense. Your 'idea' of how such object behaves is nothing but your delusion.

Quote:
2. The "best possible world" that I refer to, is a possible world in which the relationship between good and evil is the most ideal. That is plenty distinct. Of all the possible worlds, this one must have the most good in comparison to evil, if it's creator is indeed a tri-omni deity. As for defining "good' and "evil", in this context, we involve ourselves in theology. Because it's a theological issue, we maybe ought to ask what it is that God deems "good' or "evil".

Even if 'god' deems such world the best possible, it would be as arbitrary (and trivial) as say, Mao deems his nation the best possible. Not to mention there is no way to measure what 'god' deems. At best you are guessing based on your subjective interpretation of the bible. Really, you are just fantasizing there is such a standard. Indeed, by virture of Euthyphro dilemma such objective moral standard is impossible.



tuffy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 170

04 May 2012, 1:41 pm

Is OP having a manic episode? All the replies are a bit off. o.O



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

04 May 2012, 5:29 pm

01001011 wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
1. We do have something of an idea as to how a tri-omni God would behave, because being tri-omni means He is fully knowledgable, fully capable, and fully benevolent. For Him to be acting in accordance with His nature necessitates this being the best possible scenario. All I assume is that a tri-omni being would act in accordance with it's own nature.

You have not come up with any non-trivial standard of 'good' or 'evil' to begin with. Therefore your 'fully benevolent' god is complete nonsense. Your 'idea' of how such object behaves is nothing but your delusion.

Quote:
2. The "best possible world" that I refer to, is a possible world in which the relationship between good and evil is the most ideal. That is plenty distinct. Of all the possible worlds, this one must have the most good in comparison to evil, if it's creator is indeed a tri-omni deity. As for defining "good' and "evil", in this context, we involve ourselves in theology. Because it's a theological issue, we maybe ought to ask what it is that God deems "good' or "evil".

Even if 'god' deems such world the best possible, it would be as arbitrary (and trivial) as say, Mao deems his nation the best possible. Not to mention there is no way to measure what 'god' deems. At best you are guessing based on your subjective interpretation of the bible. Really, you are just fantasizing there is such a standard. Indeed, by virture of Euthyphro dilemma such objective moral standard is impossible.


1. You seem to have mistaken the context. AG was working from the UOD (universe of discourse) that Christianity may be true, in order to criticize it. In this context, I don't need to substantiate that God is tri-omni, in terms of general epistemics (as opposed to the less existential exercise of working from a UOD), because He defined Himself as tri-omni in the scriptures.

So, my idea of how such an object behaves, is informed by how that object defines itself. Of course, I'd be perfectly willing to debate over whether or not this universe of discourse has any grounding.

2. "Subjective interpretation of the bible"? Interesting assumption... As for the rest of the material, I would say that it is related to the issue of the UOD which I established.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib