Kelowna and Religion

[youjustcomplain]

Just because you are offended doesn't mean they are wrong. In fact pointing out how ridiculous and absurd religions are is the right thing to do.

Please keep your trolling to the religion thread. Or show me where I said I was offended.
No, the right thing to do is leave people to their beliefs. Not try to make them feel stupid for thinking differently from you. Nobody but you likes it when you're condescending and insulting to believers.

[Sol316]

According to Wikipedia: "The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his creation, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual."

Wikipedia? The website that anybody can edit? Ri-i-i-ight. I've made some great edits to Wikipedia page regarding Kelowna's high-rises. That said, it doesn't give me much suspicion as to the validity of Wikipedia. Let's go with this:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PR.HTM

What was the point of posting this particular Vatican webpage? There's nothing on it that is specific to the Vatican's official position on their origins perspective. Is it: 6 literal 24 hour creation? evolution? theistic evolution? intelligent design? etc.
What?

[Sol316]

Found this:

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996.

John Paul said, “And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.” He recognized that there were “different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution” and different “philosophies” upon which the theory of evolution is based.

Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudato Si', writes: “The word 'creation' has a broader meaning than 'nature,' for it has to do with God's loving plan in which every creature has its own value and significance” (LS 76).

The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang
The Roman Catholic Church is pro-evolution and Big Bang, but with a twist
October 28, 2014
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180953166/
---

So it appears "theistic evolution" is the Catholic Church's official position, which, according to Phlllip E. Johnson, is inherently superficial.

[CrystalCity]

What is so "superficial" about that? If a supreme being exists with the power to create a universe, is it not possible for that being to be so detailed in every aspect of their infinite creation? That seems to be true monotheism, if you ask me. That being doesn't need to change because they are infinite, and what created is also infinite at the macro and micro level. As humans "created in [that] image" are we not ourselves detailed in what we conceive? It is our on-going, and on-growing relationship with that Creator that is in flux. As the New Testament states: No one knows except the Father.

[Sol316]

What is so "superficial" about that? If a supreme being exists with the power to create a universe, is it not possible for that being to be so detailed in every aspect of their infinite creation? That seems to be true monotheism, if you ask me. That being doesn't need to change because they are infinite, and what created is also infinite at the macro and micro level. As humans "created in [that] image" are we not ourselves detailed in what we conceive? It is our on-going, and on-growing relationship with that Creator that is in flux. As the New Testament states: No one knows except the Father.

"No one knows except the Father." refers to who knows the day and hour of Jesus' return to earth.(Matthew 24:36)
---
Is Theistic Evolution a Contradiction in Terms? - Phillip E. Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BclWeqiNMT8

[CrystalCity]

You didn't answer my question. What is superficial about believing that God can be so detailed as to create the universe through science? Have you not ever had a labour of love? The details go into labours of love are never ending. God is Love, according to Christianity.

As for the Second Coming, there was more to that in the return of Jesus. At the time the Hebrews wanted the Messiah to deliver them from the Romans, just as Moses delivered them from the Egyptians. Their hearts became cold because of continued oppression. Jesus wanted to break the chain of abusive eye for an eye retaliation. The only true way to achieve deliverance is by taking on God's Mantel...that is through love. It must come from within, infinitely, to achieve infinite deliverance externally. That is reflected in the depth and detail of creation down to the minute muon and up to the super massive black holes. That doesn't seem superficial to me.

[Sol316]

You didn't answer my question. What is superficial about believing that God can be so detailed as to create the universe through science? Have you not ever had a labour of love? The details go into labours of love are never ending. God is Love, according to Christianity.

As for the Second Coming, there was more to that in the return of Jesus. At the time the Hebrews wanted the Messiah to deliver them from the Romans, just as Moses delivered them from the Egyptians. Their hearts became cold because of continued oppression. Jesus wanted to break the chain of abusive eye for an eye retaliation. The only true way to achieve deliverance is by taking on God's Mantel...that is through love. It must come from within, infinitely, to achieve infinite deliverance externally. That is reflected in the depth and detail of creation down to the minute muon and up to the super massive black holes. That doesn't seem superficial to me.

Did you watch the Phillip Johnson video clip? Not only has he said in interviews that theistic evolution is superficial thinking, but also says in this video clip that theistic evolution "is a contradiction in terms, as the words are used in our society. It isn't an inherent contradiction in terms because a Creator -- God -- could create by a process of gradual development, which we might call evolution. The problem with that formulation is that it isn't what evolution means in the scientific culture. In the science culture, in the science education culture, evolution means a purposeless, material mechanism, you see? So it isn't being used to further a purpose, or it wouldn't be evolution."

Definition of "contradiction in terms": a phrase that contains words which have very different or opposite meanings
eg. a public service run for profit, jumbo shrimp, true fiction, poor billionaire, etc.
---

Some origins viewpoints:

1. ATHEISTIC NATURALISM God does not exist. There is no real design (only apparent design) and nature is all there is. (Carl Sagan:"The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.")

2. AGNOSTIC NATURALISM One is unsure whether God exists. Though nature may not be all there is, nature is all that matters.

3. THEISTIC NATURALISM God exists. He designed the natural laws. There is no design in the strict sense, and although *in principle* nature is not all that matters, *in effect* it is.

4. THEISTIC EVOLUTION (WEAK DESIGN). God designed the natural laws so that their ordinary operation would result in the intended outcome.

5. THEISTIC EVOLUTION (STRONG DESIGN). To ensure the intended outcome, God not only designed the natural laws, but also determined their initial conditions.

6. INTERVENTION To ensure the intended outcome, God not only designed the natural laws and determined their initial conditions, but also intervened in subsequent conditions.

7. SPECIAL CREATION [old universe/old earth/recent global flood] To ensure the intended outcome, God designed the natural laws, determined their initial conditions, and intervened in subsequent conditions. Although microevolution /speciation occur, it can be better described as microvariation — variation within created "kinds" (baramins) eg. the cat "kind". Macroevolution has never occurred.

8. SPECIAL CREATION [young universe/young earth/recent global flood] To ensure the intended outcome, God designed the natural laws, determined their initial conditions, and intervened in subsequent conditions. God created the universe thousands (not billions) of years ago. Although microevolution /speciation occur, it can be better described as microvariation — variation within created "kinds" (baramins) eg. the cat "kind". Macroevolution has never occurred.

[ekir8]

You can quote as many monsters as you want. They would be monsters if they believed in a god or if they didn't.

You asked for an example of someone who's lack of belief in God caused them to do evil. Those quotes were my best attempt to provide that for the sake of the conversation. No doubt they are mentally deranged so you may very well be correct in assuming that they would be monsters regardless of belief status, the point was providing their statements on the matter as they did state that basically, "there is no god so what's to stop me from doing anything I want?"

The entire point is that some people do awful things, with or without religion.

Agreed.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. Atheism is not a doctrine; it doesn't have any sort of rules about morality or say anything about being judged after death or how to be a good person.

No rules about morality. Got it.

Atheists have the same capacity to know what is good and what is not for themselves and for others. If the person doesn't know good from bad, they're likely suffering from a mental illness. Mental illnesses don't discriminate on belief or lack there of.

But with no rules about morality, can't good and bad be relative? If my family is hungry, taking what you have is good. What's yours isn't mine unless I have the capacity to take it from you without you reciprocating. Maintaining my bloodline is the epitome of good from where I stand. Why should I be concerned with how my actions are perceived by others if the means to an end is good for me? It's easy to make a blanket statement about right and wrong when things are easy and everyone has a full belly, not so easy when desperation sets in.

If belief in god prevented people from doing awful things, then we wouldn't have so many awful things in the world given the number of people who believe in a god. Yet we do.

Totally subjective. Are you worried about something awful happening to you every time you leave the safety of your house? Me neither.

If belief in god made people act good, then you'd expect to see next to zero believers in prison, and yet that's not what we see.

If I were to take a guess on this, I'd say that Atheists tend to be more educated as the education system does not at all delve into spirituality. More education would generally mean better off financially which would lead to less desperation. I also think that a lot of people with skeletons in their closet justify their thoughts and actions by convincing themselves that they've been saved through religion. I highly doubt that they would sacrifice any measure of comfort for the sake of their supposed faith.

Objective moral standard?
What is objective about it? And does that mean that all people who believe in a god follow the same standard?

I believe all good people follow the objective moral standard of: if you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else. Myself and all people I associate with follow this objective moral standard. Atheists and believers alike. For the sake of the argument, however, believers believe that they will answer for their choices in this regard whereas atheists don't believe there is any entity that exists that you would need to answer to. That could be akin to kids and consequences. There are some kids who are just good kids, they don't need to be threatened with consequences in order to behave well. Some kids need to be aware of consequences in order to behave well. Some kids without consequences will behave terribly. Likewise, if an atheist is desperate and doesn't believe in spiritual consequences, what would stop them from doing something awful for personal gain. If a believer is desperate and truly believes they will need to answer to a higher power for their actions, would they be more likely to refrain from doing something awful even if it meant personal gain?

Natural Law?
What is this? I would never ever think of nature as a good guide for how humans in society should behave.

https://thundermark.files.wordpress.com ... -right.pdf
Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Have you really not heard anybody advocate for survival of the fittest? Why don't you think this is a good guide for how humans in society should behave? Is it because we are apart from animals? What makes us any different from animals? If we evolved in nature are we not rooted in primitive behavioral patterns? Or is there some kind of unique spark of life that differentiates us?

[CrystalCity]

5. THEISTIC EVOLUTION (STRONG DESIGN). To ensure the intended outcome, God not only designed the natural laws, but also determined their initial conditions.

6. INTERVENTION To ensure the intended outcome, God not only designed the natural laws and determined their initial conditions, but also intervened in subsequent conditions.

7. SPECIAL CREATION [old universe/old earth/recent global flood] To ensure the intended outcome, God designed the natural laws, determined their initial conditions, and intervened in subsequent conditions. Although microevolution /speciation occur, it can be better described as microvariation — variation within created "kinds" (baramins) eg. the cat "kind". Macroevolution has never occurred.

8. SPECIAL CREATION [young universe/young earth/recent global flood] To ensure the intended outcome, God designed the natural laws, determined their initial conditions, and intervened in subsequent conditions. God created the universe thousands (not billions) of years ago. Although microevolution /speciation occur, it can be better described as microvariation — variation within created "kinds" (baramins) eg. the cat "kind". Macroevolution has never occurred.

Again, Evolution is about HOW not, why. The definition of Theistic Evolution that you provided is itself limited in what is actually taught by the Catholic Church. You are trying to merge two questions together into one. You could ask WHY God would use evolution which still brings us back to my statement that any creation being a labour of love is detailed. God's plan hasn't changed, only the Human understanding of it happened. God being eternal, time itself is nothing to him, and so one second, a day, a millennium, or an eon are all the same to him, and he reveals himself according to the level we are capable during whatever moment we are in. Why? Because the father, as any loving parent, maintains the relationship with the child at where the child is in development. As long as God's children are busy jumping up and down screaming "I'm right and you're wrong," there will never be deliverance in the spiritual family, making those children a mockery of any other belief practiced or not among the rest of Humanity.

Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Have you really not heard anybody advocate for survival of the fittest? Why don't you think this is a good guide for how humans in society should behave? Is it because we are apart from animals? What makes us any different from animals? If we evolved in nature are we not rooted in primitive behavioral patterns? Or is there some kind of unique spark of life that differentiates us?

You do realise that Survival of the Fittest has nothing to do with physical power, but the ability of a species to adapt to it's environment. In many cases this means having a communion with the space around it. Dominate it too much, and the ecosystem collapses. Essentially evil is a destructive force, which in the end destroys itself. It is not sustainable. Goodness by it's nature is nurturing and perpetuating. It is shown that some higher mammals (and supposedly octopi) have a basic sense of moral fairness enough to be able to count and develop a sense of loyalty. Human awareness of that moral fairness goes one step further in that it is capable of forecasting self awareness into multiple scenarios and outcomes between multiple individuals.

[youjustcomplain]

You asked for an example of someone who's lack of belief in God caused them to do evil. Those quotes were my best attempt to provide that for the sake of the conversation. No doubt they are mentally deranged...

I stated that you could list a lot of people who've done awful things and those people also may not believe in a god. What I can't understand is why they'd base their awfulness on the lack of belief in god.

..."there is no god so what's to stop me from doing anything I want?"

With or without a belief in god though, people do what they want. How many believers rape and murder others? How many are "sinners" in the eye's of the church? I mean, we're told that we're born sinners. What a wonderful loophole of a system the Christian faith has in place where you can be awful as much as you want, provided you say sorry. (I realize it's a little more than just saying sorry)
No fear of god or eternal punishment has ever made me do good things and yet, I find myself doing good as often as I want.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. Atheism is not a doctrine; it doesn't have any sort of rules about morality or say anything about being judged after death or how to be a good person.

No rules about morality. Got it.

Nailed it ! Yes. Atheism doesn't tell anyone how to act. We already have it within us to be kind and awful. We choose which constantly. Most of us choose to be kind/good/respectful/helpful etc... without the need for eternal threats. Doing good for the sake of doing good is a little different than doing good because you're being threatened.

But with no rules about morality, can't good and bad be relative? If my family is hungry, taking what you have is good. What's yours isn't mine unless I have the capacity to take it from you without you reciprocating. Maintaining my bloodline is the epitome of good from where I stand. Why should I be concerned with how my actions are perceived by others if the means to an end is good for me? It's easy to make a blanket statement about right and wrong when things are easy and everyone has a full belly, not so easy when desperation sets in.

Yes. good and bad are relative. Good and bad are judgements made by us in the time we live in. Back when the bible was written, for instance, were woman treated equally to men ? Where black bought and sold as slaves? By todays standards, we'd call those things "bad". Point is, good and bad are subjective, not objective. The Christian bible justifies a lot of bad. There is no objectivity to it.
Besides, if your family is hungry and you steal something to feed them, did you commit evil? Will you go to hell for having a much lower social standing than someone else? It's not clear cut.

... if an atheist is desperate and doesn't believe in spiritual consequences, what would stop them from doing something awful for personal gain.

The same thing that would deter a believer.

If a believer is desperate and truly believes they will need to answer to a higher power for their actions, would they be more likely to refrain from doing something awful even if it meant personal gain?

Maybe. But as long as humans act impulsively, we will continue to do awful things, regardless of potential punishment.
Shorten the time frame for this eternal hell punishment to just what happens in the following days after an awful act. You may be in jail for the rest of your life, and you'd have to live with yourself. In some countries, you might be executed. And yet, people still do these awful things, knowing that the threat is much closer to them than hell which nobody alive has ever experienced.

https://thundermark.files.wordpress.com ... -right.pdf
Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Have you really not heard anybody advocate for survival of the fittest? Why don't you think this is a good guide for how humans in society should behave? Is it because we are apart from animals? What makes us any different from animals? If we evolved in nature are we not rooted in primitive behavioral patterns? Or is there some kind of unique spark of life that differentiates us?

Wait. I never advocated for humans to behave in society under the "survival of the fittest" model. It's an attempt at explaining how some animals dominant traits are passed down the generations to benefit a species. As mentioned separately though, Survival of the fittest is much more about animals ability to adapt to their environment.
Evolution is even accepted by the church. And it has nothing to do with acting well, or being good. It doesn't rely on or deny a belief in god in order to work.
Is it because we're apart from animals? No. We're not apart from animals. We live in different society models than other animal species. But that doesn't mean we are special. Doesn't mean we have a soul that is denied to all other animals. We just have different social constructs in place than they do.

As for hearing people advocate for survival of the fittest. Sure. I've heard of it. Mostly from the deranged or the immature. I do remember trying to reconcile those thoughts as a teen. I grew out of that line of thinking; it was very flawed.

[ekir8]

You do realise that Survival of the Fittest has nothing to do with physical power, but the ability of a species to adapt to it's environment. In many cases this means having a communion with the space around it. Dominate it too much, and the ecosystem collapses. Essentially evil is a destructive force, which in the end destroys itself. It is not sustainable. Goodness by it's nature is nurturing and perpetuating. It is shown that some higher mammals (and supposedly octopi) have a basic sense of moral fairness enough to be able to count and develop a sense of loyalty. Human awareness of that moral fairness goes one step further in that it is capable of forecasting self awareness into multiple scenarios and outcomes between multiple individuals.

Nothing to do with physical power? I don't buy that. Not everything to do with physical power, I can absolutely side with but physical power has a great deal to do with evolution as it is described in the material realm. Nature doesn't seem to care much about fairness. Balance, yes. And it could be argued that balance is the epitome of fairness but not when you inspect it on the microcosm.

I chased a coyote off yesterday, it was looking to pick off one or more of my chickens. I've made sure the fences are fortified and the guard dog's post will be closer to the coop. Maybe the coyote will be back, maybe it will get a chicken. Would that be fair to me or my chickens? Would it be fair to my kids who rely on the nutrients the eggs provide for them every morning? Maybe the coyote won't succeed, maybe it will starve to death. Is that fair to the coyote? Either way, I am currently in competition with a hungry coyote and it's over food. I need eggs for my family and the coyote needs calories to prepare for the cold. One of us will win and while physical dominance of the particular space isn't the entirety of what's required, it plays a huge role. My dog is huge and strong, I've built a sturdy fence. The coyote will not only need to be smart to win, it will also need a great deal of physical strength in order to bypass the obstacles and then be prepared for a dogfight.

You're correct, dominate a space too much and the ecosystem will collapse. If the coyote set up shop in my chicken coop, soon there would be no chickens. If I get too protective and keep the chickens locked up all day, their production will fall off and maybe they'll hen peck each other to death. But neither I nor the coyote are evil, we are both looking for ways to survive and from our own perspectives, we are attempting to do good. I protect and treat the chickens well and they reward me with eggs that I can use to nurture and perpetuate my family, the coyote wants to survive to perpetuate and nurture its kind. We are both doing good, but we are in competition and will do what it takes to win.

The octopus may have a sense of moral fairness and loyalty to its own kind, but it will not extend it's sense of fairness and loyalty to a shark. Nothing against the shark, but it will fight a shark to the death if the necessity arises. The winner of that fight, the one that gets the opportunity to perpetuate its kind, will be the one who possess greater physical power (for the most part).

When it comes to humans, there are countless examples of times when law and order broke down and how humans reacted. No doubt in order to perpetuate you'll need care, nurturing and cooperation. But conflict will always arise. It's not fair but its balanced. If one group is desperate enough they will take what the other group has and through that force they will be presented with the opportunity to perpetuate their own whereas the ones overtaken may not. And that stronger group will one day be overtaken by another group and so on. At least that's how it would be in the realm of natural law because this is how it goes with all animals who fight to dominate a space.

But yes, I agree that humans have the capacity to extend their morality beyond what animals can and I can't find reason presented in nature that can explain that. Bigger brains? Maybe, I guess. Spark of divinity? I'm more inclined to believe that. Natural Law vs Gods Law. I'm in a rush so I hope that was coherent enough to respectfully address your comment.

[CrystalCity]

You just complain is correct. It's about adapting to the environment. Humans would have been eaten long ago had they not further developed the use of tools, like other primates...opposable thumbs may be part of it. There's good and evil that can come from cooperation. On one side you have community support groups, on the other you have OPEC and other cartels. Trust, compassion, and empathy are just as debatable among psychologists as guile, greed, and contempt. Experience vs intuition vs instinct, all are part of the natural world. Human are not, by far, the strongest nor physically intimidating species on the planet. Even within the human species itself, the most physically intimidating is not usually the most successful.

[Sol316]

youjustcomplain wrote Nov. 3: "The Christian bible justifies a lot of bad. There is no objectivity to it."

Please explain, and give 3 or 4 examples from the Bible.

[youjustcomplain]

youjustcomplain wrote Nov. 3: "The Christian bible justifies a lot of bad. There is no objectivity to it."

Please explain, and give 3 or 4 examples from the Bible.

Sure. happy to.

#1 - Justification of the Old Testament
Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


#2 - Drowning pigs
Mark 5:12 and 5:13
12: And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13: And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.


#3 - Severe beatings
Like 12:47
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.


#4 - Infantacide
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


I didn't really do an exhaustive search to find these few samples. I googled them.
The bible justifies slavery, torture, vicarious redemption, physical abuse, genocide, the list goes on. My point though isn't that the book is all evil. Far from it. I'm cherry picking out some awful stuff to show that it's not a good moral book. If morality is to be obtained from Christianity, then Christians need to wield a different book when they tell Atheists that we are the ones without the ability to know right from wrong.

Other than sociopaths, I suspect everyone knows right from wrong and those things are subjective, not objective.

Poor many steals food to feed his starving family. Objectively, is stealing is wrong, then this guy is behaving very poorly.
I don't believe in objective morality; it doesn't exist.

[Sol316]

youjustcomplain wrote Nov. 3: "The Christian bible justifies a lot of bad. There is no objectivity to it."

Please explain, and give 3 or 4 examples from the Bible.

Sure. happy to.

#1 - Justification of the Old Testament
Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


#2 - Drowning pigs
Mark 5:12 and 5:13
12: And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13: And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.


#3 - Severe beatings
Like 12:47
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.


#4 - Infantacide
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


I didn't really do an exhaustive search to find these few samples. I googled them.
The bible justifies slavery, torture, vicarious redemption, physical abuse, genocide, the list goes on. My point though isn't that the book is all evil. Far from it. I'm cherry picking out some awful stuff to show that it's not a good moral book. If morality is to be obtained from Christianity, then Christians need to wield a different book when they tell Atheists that we are the ones without the ability to know right from wrong.

Other than sociopaths, I suspect everyone knows right from wrong and those things are subjective, not objective.

Poor many steals food to feed his starving family. Objectively, is stealing is wrong, then this guy is behaving very poorly.
I don't believe in objective morality; it doesn't exist.

LOL! All you've done is to demonstrate the proverb: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Any Bible text without context is pretext.

Foe example, you cite Luke 12:47. "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

In Luke 12, Jesus is giving a *parable* (a parable is a story -- a type of metaphorical analogy that illustrates an instructive lesson or principle)

Jesus tells a story about who is a wise servant of the master, and who is an evil servant of that same master.

Jesus is basically saying that his servants will one day give an account to him.

He concludes the parable with:

47 "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." -- NIV (New International Version):

In other words, a person with talents, wealth, knowledge, time, etc. is expected that use these things to glorify God and benefit others.