Christianity

[RCSaunders]

... the world is in such a dangerous state of dissolution that it's hard to not wish for a miracle. ...

I doubt anyone writing on this forum now would disagree with what you are saying.

You are totally wrong about that.

Only mystics and those duffering from other forms of superstitioun could desire a, "miracle." There is no magic, there are no miracles. To dream of such is a kind of insanity.

Unfortunately, most philosophers today are away with the fairies (or angels or gods or other fictional beings) or live in a Platonic idealist La La Land.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But I am a Christian, and not a Catholic. And the Church I recognize started about three centuries before the Catholics got going, and long before Constantine, or Clement, Origen and Jerome. In fact, it was the Church that the emperors all persecuted, not the other one, the one they celebrated after the compromise with Roman paganism Constantine arranged.

I assume that the only Apostles that you would refer to in this connection are Paul and those who wrote the epistles. Aside from the Gospels themselves, Paul's writing and the others, are there other Early Church sources you refer to? Who?

I would assume as well that your *identity* as a Christian is in Protestantism specifically in its reaction to the Catholic excesses and, as you indicate, that you believe that Catholics are not Christians (or are only semi-Christians or partial Christians). Yet I assume that you might also not favor Luther as a source.

Who are the Protestant Christian philosophers and theologians that helped develop the 'non-denominational' position you hold to?

Do you read Protestant theology? Do you read any Catholic theologians/philosophers?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are totally wrong about that.

Ah, I see what you mean. What I meant was that many would agree that *the world* is at a dangerous juncture. (A "dangerous state of dissolution" is what I was responding to).

What interests me and what I write about is really about this juncture. The relevance of a conversation about nihilism, about anomie, about the time being out of joint (to quote Hamlet), about dangerous demagoguery, about mass-hysteria and social confusion -- my view is that all that we talk about must be related to this.

I know what a Biblical miracle is, but I know of no other circumstance -- except perhaps that we have not yet destroyed the world in nuclear conflagration -- that can be called miraculous in the magical/miraculous sense.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Unfortunately, most philosophers today are away with the fairies (or angels or gods or other fictional beings) or live in a Platonic idealist La La Land.

Is that really so? Who are some of the ultra-modern philosophers that you see as being in that la-la land?

[Immanuel Can]

...are there other Early Church sources you refer to? Who?

Well, really, one does not need any.

There may be some such sources that say the right thing, and some that spout arrant nonsense, like the Gnostics did, for example. The important fact is whether or not the Torah and the Christian Scriptures support any belief in what a particular religious organization is saying. If they do not, then what is being suggested is not inherently Christian in any way, regardless of how long-standing it has been or how many people have claimed it.

I would assume...that you believe that Catholics are not Christians (or are only semi-Christians or partial Christians).

I would never speak about an individual Catholic. Only they know what they believe, and a person does not necessarily have to have perfect theology in order to be genuinely Christian. If they did, there would be no such thing as a Christian; for which of us is perfect?

However, if one refers to what the Catholic hierarchy has taught historically and teaches now, and compare it to Scripture, one sees the profound departure for oneself. And one can only conclude that if "Christian" is now taken to mean "Catholic," then it no longer means "somebody who follows the way taught by Jesus Christ Himself," and by His personally-designated followers. There is no other conclusion to which an informed and reasonable person can come, really.

We must make of that fact the obvious, I think.

Yet I assume that you might also not favor Luther as a source.

I think we can all pause for a minute to be grateful for some of what Luther achieved, not only in terms of the emancipation of religion but also in terms of his contribution for secular freedoms as well. However, anybody who knows the whole story of Luther also knows that he was a flawed human being. Some things he said I would praise; some, I wish he had never said.

But is it necessary to admire everything about a man before we can listen to anything from a man? Because if that's the standard we use, then most of the great people in history are really going to turn out to be people we have to refuse to listen to. So I think we can be judicious and selective in what we approve of what a man says and does.

Who are the Protestant Christian philosophers and theologians that helped develop the 'non-denominational' position you hold to?

I would start with the canon of Scripture itself.

If a man (or woman) agrees with it, then great. But if he/she only speaks from his/her own opinions, and makes no connection to Scripture, then we are thrown back on merely our own preferences, with no authoritative source by which to judge the the varous pronouncements he or she makes.

Do you read Protestant theology? Do you read any Catholic theologians/philosophers?

Yes, actually. But both are non-authoritative to me. As the Tanakh puts it, we must always turn first "to the Law and to the testimony! If they do not speak in accordance with this word, it is because they have no dawn." (Isaiah 8:20) So a theologian or philosopher is only as good as his ideas are compatible with the Word of God.

That said, I think you're really trying to find out what some of my theological-philosophical influencers might be. And if that's right, then I'm happy to comply.

Among them would certainly be Soren Kierkegaard, John Locke, Alfred Edersheim, David Gooding, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Martin Buber, Carl Henry, Jacques Ellul, and paradoxically, perhaps, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jurgen Habermas, and Thomas Hardy, among other Atheist and agnostic writers. More recent influences would include Oliver O'Donovan, Craig Gay, Michael Polanyi, Lesslie Newbiggin, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Alvin Plantinga, Roger Lundin, W.L. Craig, John Lennox, Jordan Peterson, D.B. Hart...how many do you want?

[Age]

Are you susceptible to 'hysteria' now?
If yes, then WHY?
But, if no, then are you SURE?
In fact could you be subscribing and/or following 'hysteria' right now?

My impression of your annoying & obsessive manner of writing is that you have embodied a caricature of your own caricature.

People here in this forum find my writing to be an annoying or obsessive manner because I am HIGHLIGHTING, SHOWING, and REVEALING the Wrong in their writings and views. Not that they are able to YET SEE this Fact.

I don’t believe that you take yourself seriously. And for this reason I find that I can’t, either.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of when one is BELIEVING some thing is true, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing NOR contrary.

You OBVIOUSLY did NOT answer the clarifying questions I posed to you Honestly, because if you did, then you would 'have to' CONTRADICT "yourself".

But if you think or BELIEVE that this is Wrong, then answer those questions Honestly, and SEE if you can do it without CONTRADICTING "yourself".

We will then SEE who is taking who SERIOUSLY.

[Age]

Here is ANOTHER one of 'you', human beings, who refers to, AND DEFINES, 'God' as a "he".

Now, if you REALLY were listening, then you would NEVER call God a "he".

WHY do you NOT want to listen to God, "henry quirk"?

Is He/She/It preferable?

Preferable to whom?

Surely you are NOT going to change the way you speak for me NOR ANY one "else", correct?

You speak for how you prefer, correct?

If yes, then if you prefer to call God a "he" (because 'you' are a "he" or for any other reason), then keep on doing it. But this just PROVES that you are NOT LISTENING, which FURTHER PROVES WHY you STILL do NOT YET KNOW what God is EXACTLY.

Or mebbe just It?

Or mebbe just a symbol, like ∞.

meh

-----

Well when, and if, you EVER learn what God is EXACTLY, then you will use the Right and Correct symbol/s.

Until then you will keep referring to God as, the extremely laughable, "he", if that is what YOU really prefer.

WHY?

It's just convention, age.

And it is because of, so-called, "convention", in the days when this was written, WHY those human beings were STILL looking for what thee ACTUAL Truth of things ARE.

Calling God a "he" partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, were STILL arguing about whether God exists or not.

WHEN will you learn that NOT until you start speaking thee ACTUAL Truth of things you will NEVER find out what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?

Like the guy said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Did the guy EVER say sometimes a cigar is just a "he"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, at ALL times God is just God. But then you would have to KNOW what God ACTUALLY IS, FIRST, correct?

[Age]

Age wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:12 pm
and how do you avoid idolatry if you identify God with any idea, thing, or event in this world?

By just NOT idolizing ANY thing.

Right! But if you claim God is defined by some thing you know then you would be putting an idol in the place of God.

LOL

WHY would you even begin to PRESUME this?

Remember, that what you would do, is NOT necessarily what "others" would.

I CERTAINLY NEVER put an idol in the place of God.

God is just what God IS. End of story.

[Age]

I had a look. It is NOT there.

What were you lookin' for and where did you look?

A reputable or clear source of information, from you. In this forum.

By the way, thank you profusely for the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. They are VERY RARE, but are VERY WELCOME and extremely refreshing when posed.

See, I use the word 'it' a fair bit, as well as words 'this' or 'that' just to SEE how many people seek CLARITY, and to SHOW how rare CLARITY is sort, BEFORE ASSUMPTIONS are made. The adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, would on just about on all occasions JUMP to ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, BEFORE they even began to seek CLARIFICATION.

Do you even know what lace and me were tusslin' about?

There are LOTS of things that you two talk about and over.

But on this occasion what I was referring to was when "lacewing" wrote to you;
But if someone says, "I'm not seeing where you provided a reputable or clear source of information," then you tell them you already gave it and they can go look it up.

Which you commonly do.

[Age]

owl of Minerva wrote:
The right or wrong of perception is not a matter of East or West but the Age in which prophets taught.

Age wrote:
But what is ACTUALLY Right and what is ACTUALLY Wrong is NOT a matter of age, prophets, NOR ANY perceived individual thing other than the one and ONLY ACTUAL Thing.

owl of Minerva response:
I agree. Truth is One. Human PERCEPTION is two. It can be right or it can be wrong. In the Dark Age one example was the physical earth as the center of the universe. It would take an understanding of lower and higher ages as the Greeks saw it to understand why intelligence is age (cosmic cycle age not human age) related.

In the 'dark age' ANOTHER example was that the Universe was expanding and began. But it took a True understanding to SEE that this is just NOT right AT ALL.

By the way, what is your perception of 'cosmic cycle age'?

owl of Minerva wrote:
As mentioned in a prior post reincarnation was the doctrine in early Christianity. This was accepted by the Church, and by such Church heavyweights as Clement, Origen, and St. Jerome, until the doctrine was changed in A.D. 553. The concept of liberation does not exist in the West for this reason although some were given, and still are given, the status of Sainthood.

Age wrote:
Doctrines do NOT necessarily hold ANY truth AT ALL, no matter in what time period those doctrines exist.

owl of Minerva Response:
That would be difficult. One choice or perception has to be true.

So, if EVERY one chose or perceived that the physical earth is at the center of the Universe, then does that HAVE TO BE true?

Both cannot be right and both cannot be wrong.

Both what, exactly?

And, what has this got to do with ANY thing I wrote in that quote?

There could be two, three, four, or any amount of different doctrines, but they could ALL be wrong, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

owl of Minerva wrote:
The advances in science is due to both believers and non-believers and because of their contributions our lives are a whole lot better.

Age wrote:
LOL "a whole lot better" than 'what', EXACTLY?

owl of Minerva:

Better than the Dark Ages for one thing when all that was comprehended was matter; solids, liquids, and gasses.

Are you aware that you live in the, so-called, 'dark ages', relative to the future?

It was not until close to the 1700s that the subtler forces started to be discovered. We have left behind drawbridges, moats, high towers for defense and a whole lot of savagery and death.

In the days when this was being written you instead had helicopter, airplanes, ships, missiles, rockets, drones and nuclear war heads for, laughably, "defense, against yourselves", which created a WHOLE LOT of terror, misery, savagery AND death.

By the way, they were CERTAINLY VERY DARK ages, compared to the ages of the future, to you.

And, in spite of our current problems, that is not a bad thing.

Also, and if you are at all interested, if you hit the 'reply with quote' button, which has the double quotation mark at the top right of the post, and just copy and paste or write [/quote] and the end of the sentence, which you want to respond to, and then add the first line of the post, for example; quote="owl of Minerva" post_id=537174 time=1636204007 user_id=16843 is the one for this post, to the start of the next sentence, then this will make these writings far easier and simple for "others" to read and follow.

[Age]

Everyone comes to these forums for their own purposes, certainly. And everyone will, or perhaps won’t, define what those purposes are. In my case I have a number of purposes.

What is that number, and what are those purposes?

Presently however, I am trying to better understand what ‘conversion’ is. I could say ‘religious conversion’ but that would seem to exclude other sorts of conversion which are just as real, though resulting in different outcomes.

Well to better understand what 'conversion' is, you will have to FIRST decide what that word is in relation to, EXACTLY.

Otherwise the word 'conversion' could just mean or refer to;
the process of changing or causing something to change from one form to another. Or, the fact of changing one's religion or beliefs or the action of persuading someone else to change theirs.

I am not certain what is meant by *salvation* and I am uncertain even that those who speak of it are certain of what they mean.

There are a few words that fall into this category, for example; 'love', 'Mind', and 'God'.

But if you REALLY want to find out what a word means, then I found that a dictionary is about the best, simplest, and easiest place to start.

On one hand it has been taken to mean literally a salvation from the conditions of the material world, the world of mutability. One can refer to the Eastern notions of ‘liberation from the rounds of births and deaths’ in order to shine light on the Christian concept. They are not unrelated. In order to understand, even superficially the Christian religion, one will have to know something about the Eastern mystery schools.

I do not think one can avoid considering, at least in some respect, the enthusiastic Christian religion as having a psychic or psychological relationshop to the cult of Dionysius. When Dionysius came all doors were broken open. The force and power of this god’s entrance overcame all obstacles. Whatever it was, it was irresistible.

Yet we are inclined — certainly here in the written form on this philosophy forum — to these Apollonian methods. So it seems to me that we have to face some not very pleasant facts about *the human world*. What moves people, what moves masses of people, is not idea but emotion and sentiment. You can lecture people until you are blue in the face (Apollonian endeavor) and get little result. But when a Dionysian preacher, or some demagogue, brings forth a social incantation thousands and millions are moved to action.

REALLY?

Will you provide ANY examples?

If you can bear to read the following — it is very interesting at the least — I think it sheds some light on the question of ‘conversion’. It is from a book by AD Nock by that name: Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (1933). Nock here opens discussing the conversion of Lucius which took place in the eleventh book of The Golden Ass (or The Metamorphosis) by Apuleius (written in the 2nd century).

If you think this book sheds some light on the question of 'conversion', then WHY EXACTLY are you STILL trying to better understand what 'conversion' is?

It is just one word. How long does it take a person to better understand what one word ACTUALLY MEANS?

The hero of The Metamorphosis was transformed, through his dabbling in magic (in combo with sexual improprieties) into a donkey . . . And he is saved, as it were, by the goddess Isis.

It appears here that you follow or believe in a certain doctrine, which you are 'trying to' convert "others" to, as well.

Do you follow or believe in a certain doctrine?

If yes, then what one, exactly?

Our survey of paganism has given us little reason to
expect that the adhesion of any individual to a cult
would involve any marked spiritual reorientation, any
recoil from his moral and religious past, any idea
of starting a new life. For adhesion to acquire the
emotional values of conversion special personal circum-
stances were necessary, and we find such in the story
told in the eleventh book of the Metamorphoses of
Apuleius.

This strange and beautiful work, written
under Marcus Aurelius, is based upon a Greek romance
telling how a young man was led by an amour into
careless dabbling in magic and was as a result changed
into the shape ofan ass. In the original story he regained
his shape thanks to the antidote (eating rose-leaves),
and the ending is burlesque. Apuleius gave to it a different
conclusion, in which there is more than a touch of autobiography.

We must follow it closely, for it is the high-water mark of the piety
which grew out of the mystery religions.

The hero, while still in the shape of an ass, awaking
in the night, invokes the aid of Isis, 'being sure that the
highest goddess is strong in the majesty that is all her
own, and that human affairs are wholly guided by her
providence, and that not only animals tame and wild
but also inanimate things are given life by the divine
will of her light and deity'. She appears to him in a
dream, tells him of herself, the object of the worship
paid by all the world to various divine names, and in which there is
speaks of her festival of the morrow and says:

'At my direction a priest on the very outskirts of the procession
will bear in his right hand a wreath of roses attached
to a sistrum (rattle). So without hesitation part the
crowd and haste to join the procession, relying on my
favour. Come close to the priest and gently, as though
you were kissing his hand, reach for the rose and rid
yourself of the skin of that animal that I have so long
hated. Do not fear any of my instructions as difficult,
for at this same moment at which I come to you I am
there also present and am enjoining on my priest in his
sleep what he must do. At my bidding the closely
packed throngs will make way for you....You will
remember absolutely and always keep stored in your
heart of hearts one thing,that the remaining course of
your life till you draw the last breath is made over to
me. It is right that you should owe all the existence
which is to be yours to her thanks to whom you have
returned to humanity. But your life will be happy,
nay glorious, under my protection, and when you have
accomplished your span and descended to the under-
world there also, even in the lower hemisphere, you
will as a dweller in the Elysian fields constantly adore
me whom you now see,shining in the darkness of
Acheron,reigning in the recesses of Styx, and you will
find me gracious toward you. And if by acts of diligent
obedience,faithful devotion, and steadfast self-disci-
pline you deserve well of my godhead,you shall know
that I and I alone have the power to prolong your life
beyond the bounds appointed by your fate.'

He awakened straightway and pondered over all the
injunctions which he had received. The sun rose and
all nature seemed to rejoice. The procession took its
course and the priest in question appeared. Lucius did
not like to rush forward, but crept in, the people making
way. The priest, seeing all happen in accordance with
the orders which he had received from Isis, stopped
suddenly, put forth his right hand, and held the wreath
before the lips of Lucius, and he was a man again. The
throngs marvelled, the faithful paid homage to the
miracle. They raised their hands to heaven and with
loud harmonious voices bore witness to this manifest
goodness of the goddess. We know their cry, Great is
Isis and we know their mood; it is as at Lourdes when
the word goes forth that there is a cure.

Lucius, restored to human shape, was speechless
with depth of feeling. 'The priest, knowing somehow
by divine admonition all my misfortunes from the
beginning, although himself also profoundly stirred by
this striking miracle, signed to the people to give me
a linen garment to cover myself. ...When this was
done, with smiling and in truth unearthly face, in
wonder at the sight ofme, he spoke thus:

“After bearing many and various labours, after being driven about by
great tempests of Fortune and mighty storms you have
at last come,Lucius, to the harbour of calm and the
altar of mercy. Neither your birth nor your rank, nor
the learning which adorns you availed you at all,but
in the slippery time of youthful vigour you sank to the
pleasures of a slave and obtained a sorry reward for your
ill-starred inquisitiveness. But,however it was, the
blindness of Fortune,while torturing you with the
worst of perils, has with a malice which proved short-
sighted brought you to this pious happiness. Let her
go now and rage with her worst frenzy and seek some
other object for her cruelty: for hostile chance has no
power against those whose lives have been claimed as
hers by the majesty of our goddess. What profit did
spiteful Fortune derive from robbers or wild beasts or
slavery or the hardest of journeys, bringing you back
to where you started, or the daily fear of death? Now
you have been taken under the protection of Fortune,
yes,and a Fortune that sees, that by the splendour of
her radiance gives light even to the other gods. Put on
now a more cheerful countenance to match your white
raiment, join with glad steps the procession of the
goddess who is your deliverer. Let the irreligious see, let
them see and learn how wrong they are. Lo, Lucius freed
from his old woes by the providence of great Isis
triumphs joyously over his own fortune. Yet that you
may be safer and more protected, enrol in this holy
soldiering, to which you were but now bidden to pledge
yourself,and even now dedicate yourself to the follow-
ing of our religion and take on yourself the voluntary
yoke of service. For when you have begun to serve the
goddess, then you will the more perceive the fruit of the
liberty which is yours.''

[Immanuel Can]

Presently however, I am trying to better understand what ‘conversion’ is. I could say ‘religious conversion’ but that would seem to exclude other sorts of conversion which are just as real, though resulting in different outcomes.

I am not certain what is meant by *salvation* and I am uncertain even that those who speak of it are certain of what they mean.

Two huge questions. May I chime in?

Firstly, you should maybe decide if you want to insist that "conversion" must mean the same thing for all people, from all perspectives. And I don't think it is, or that there's any justification for thinking it's bound to be. The only way we could be predisposed to think it had to be universally the same is if we already were totally convinced that all "religions" were just different manifestations of exactly the same thing -- and that some sort of bland Humanism was the secret root of all of it.

Do we have reason to think that bland Humanism is the master-metanarrative, the deep truth behind all "religions"? I don't see why that would be more plausible than any alternative, such as that one or more "religions" are not the same, but actually have some unique deep feature or features. But you can see what you think about that.

As for "salvation," you might need to pay close attention to what one is said to be "saved from" In each tradition, and also what is the agency of that "salvation," in each case. For it certainly means wildly different things in Gnostic or Eastern thought than it ever does in something like Judaism or Christianity, and quite different again from something like Islam. In world-denying religions, "salvation" basically means some sort of "enlightenment" or "transcendence" by which one escapes the material world through one's own elevation. That's quite a different concept from Jewish national "salvation," and nothing at all like the Christian "salvation from sin and death."

So perhaps the problem is that the two questions above are premised on a dubious assumption: namely that "conversion" and "salvation" have to end up meaning something essentially in common in all cases. And I suggest that the first step to getting clarity regarding those words will be to rethink that gratuitious (and, I suggest, incorrect) premise.

Just my two cents on that, for what they're worth.

[Age]

This [i.e. reincarnation]was accepted by the Church,

What historians call "the Church" is usually Constantine's "church," which is to say, Roman Catholicism.

I will let Catholics here say what they accept and do not; and I will leave them to make "saints" of Clement, Origien or Jerome (though their usage of the word "saint" is in no way Biblical at all...in fact, it's contra-Biblical).

But I am a Christian, and not a Catholic. And the Church I recognize started about three centuries before the Catholics got going, and long before Constantine, or Clement, Origen and Jerome. In fact, it was the Church that the emperors all persecuted, not the other one, the one they celebrated after the compromise with Roman paganism Constantine arranged.

So this idea that some old dude, whatever his name, thought reincarnation was okay means nothing to the point. The Church of which Christ spoke never accepted any such thing. And if they ever had, it would only have indicated that for a time, the Church had lost its way; for the Biblical account will support no reincarnation at all, as I already pointed out in my last message, with an associated quotation. Here's another:

"...when a few years have come I shall go the way from which I shall not return." (Job. 16:22)

And I can give you more, if you doubt.

When men say something and it disagrees with what God says, there is never any question who is wrong. Men know nothing about the afterlife, save what God Himself tells them.

Now, you can argue that reincarnation is real. You can argue that person X or Y has supported your view. You can argue that the Bible is wrong in what it says about the afterlife. But the one thing you can't say is that the Bible teaches reincarnation, or that any real Christian can believe in it.

What does 'reincarnation' even mean to 'you', human beings?

'you' have, after all, MISINTERPRETED just about EVERY thing that was said and written, so why would you not have MISINTERPRETED what 'reincarnation' is AS WELL?

[Age]

I meant your logic that "God can do everything."

This is nothing I ever said, or that Torah would allow. I'm afraid you've ingested an idea about God from pop culture; I don't think it's worth defending.

And, "others" know that 'you', 'immanuel can" have ingested ideas about God from very small, narrowed, wrong, and misinterpreted versions of things, which are obviously not even worth defending at all.

There are various things that Torah says God cannot do. He cannot lie, cannot sin, cannot be untrue to Himself, cannot fail in what He purposes, cannot break His word, and so on. So when we say, "God can do anything," we must not foolishly imagine that means he can be untrue to Himself or draw a round square, or do anything ridiculous, unholy or self-contradictory. There is no claim in the Bible He ever does any such thing, or that He has to, in order to be who He is.

He is God. He alone is always able to act in accordance with His own nature. Indeed, He never acts otherwise. He is the Faithful God.

Is there ANY thing is NOT always able to act in accordance with its own nature?

If yes, then what exactly?

But if no, then God is not that much different here from ANY thing else, correct?

[Age]

For who spoke to Abraham (Genesis 18) and Gideon (Judges 6)?

Man can hear the voice of God only in his own conscience.

Apparently not. Men like Moses and Abraham spoke to God, as Torah says, "face to face."

LOL

Talk about being BLINDED by one's OWN BELIEFS.

What did the "face of God" look like EXACTLY?

The deification of the material is contrary to conscience.

The denigration of the material is contrary to Torah. When God created the world, Torah says repeatedly that "God saw that it was good." If you say that the material is inherently not good, then you are denying Torah, obviously.

LOL

You could not be more completely and utterly BLINDED here "immanuel can".

Which you are volitionally free to do, of course: but let's not pretend after that that Torah agrees.