What disgusts you the most about beanieboy?

[missedmarks]

Yeah, it's a Rodeo term which ironically also is the literal translation of the Koine Greek term for Sin. Didn't know that when I picked it.

I'd be interested in where specificially I strayed from the truth. It's not like I'm waving the "Judge Not" flag. I'm saying Judge in love, harshly if needed, but hating your neighbor is wrong and there is no scriptural basis for it. Conversely there is plenty of scripture that says otherwise.

 

[Poly]

but hating your neighbor is wrong and there is no scriptural basis for it.

Yes there is.

 

[Balder]

Poly,

Jesus said, ""You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing {than others?} Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Jesus appears to be changing directions here, introducing something new, not simply reiterating the old perspectives preserved in scripture (which you are quoting here). Is this not really the case?

 

[missedmarks]

In regards to the Psalm

"But I say to you that every one of you who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, "You fool!" shall be liable to the hell of fire." Mathew 5:22

Here Christ flat out states not to hate your brother. David in the Psalm claims that he hates the enemies of God, and by God not correcting him we are to assume that God approves? Of course David is opperating under the old covenant, before Christ said "Love those who persecute you." Even if God approves of this, is the Psalm really a mandate to do likewise? The Psalms are hymns of praise, not instructions for living.

In regards to Solomon's list of things God hates in the proverbs.
"So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil liies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" Romans 7, 22

Here Paul clearly describes sin as something that resides in our flesh, something foreign. He clearly makes the seperation between the sinner and the sin inside of them. Now granted he is talking about indwelling sin remaining after one has turned to Christ. We could debate that those outside of Christ are not really our brothers, or that without Christ perhaps that sin is all consuming. I maintain that it is the sin that is the problem, the person is still one of God's creations.

 

[Army of One]

The bible doesn't teach you to be cruel to anyone. Nor to hate anyone.

Linking verses that say we are to hate that which is evil into a line of reasoning that ends in saying that one should hate those that do evil make no sense. Thats bad interpretation and it's isogesis of the worst sort.

Well, I guess I'll just tear all those verses out of my Bible that talk about Hating the person and not just the sin.

Even the most depraved and evil person is still a child of God and is made in his image. He is not your enemy, your enemy is Satan who has stolen that child from the flock.

Did Jesus say that everyone is a child of God, or did He say that some were of their father the Devil? Or sons of Hell?

Some people would argue that harsh measures are needed to get that child back, and I won't argue with them, hellfire preaching gets results for some people. Other people however are simply looking for justification to be cruel. They are the same as the rock throwing mob Christ countered with his famous "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Course they ain't wrong, they got the scriptures to back it up...the rock throwing mob did too, that whole incident was an attempt to force Christ to compromise and say something against "The Law" Follow his example and you can't go wrong.

P.S. He didn't let the adultress off the hook, he informed her that he did not condemn her, and to go leave her life of sin

Your right, the mob wasn't interested in justice, but rather they were trying to trap Jesus and get Him to act in defiance of the Roman government. Their motives were anything but pure.

 

[Army of One]

In regards to the Psalm

"But I say to you that every one of you who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, "You fool!" shall be liable to the hell of fire." Mathew 5:22

Here Christ flat out states not to hate your brother.

Actually, what I see is Jesus saying to not be angry with your brother, nor call him a fool without a cause.

David in the Psalm claims that he hates the enemies of God, and by God not correcting him we are to assume that God approves? Of course David is opperating under the old covenant, before Christ said "Love those who persecute you." Even if God approves of this, is the Psalm really a mandate to do likewise? The Psalms are hymns of praise, not instructions for living.

Let's see- David offers a psalm of praise in which he declares that he hates God's enemies, and God immortalizes those words in the Bible- so yeah, I'd say God approves of those words. If it was merely recording an historical event (such as some of the narative sections of the Bible), and no condemnation of his words were given, I would agree that we shouldn't assume that God approves. But that is not the case. And David being under the old covenant has no bearing on this topic. Did Christ change the Law at all? No, He merely corrected the misunderstandings that the religious leaders had concerning the Law. He upheld the Law, and encouraged His audience to follow it.

In regards to Solomon's list of things God hates in the proverbs.
"So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil liies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" Romans 7, 22

Here Paul clearly describes sin as something that resides in our flesh, something foreign. He clearly makes the seperation between the sinner and the sin inside of them. Now granted he is talking about indwelling sin remaining after one has turned to Christ. We could debate that those outside of Christ are not really our brothers, or that without Christ perhaps that sin is all consuming. I maintain that it is the sin that is the problem, the person is still one of God's creations.

I think you are completely misunderstanding what Paul was saying in Romans 7. The flesh is not something foreign, it is a part of who we are. I don't understand why you are contorting yourself the way you are, trying to explain away obvious verses by twisting others.

 

[missedmarks]

Army of One, I'll address your points in order.

1. I'm not suggesting you tear anything out of your Bible. I'm suggesting you look at the intent of passages and compare them with the rest of the book before using them as proof texts for an argument.

2. Everyone is a Child of God...Satan is incapable of creating anything. Jesus is using a harsh rebuke to try and correct someone. He is letting them now by the actions they are serving Satan, not God. He even uses this on his closest friend Peter at one point. Do you think that Jesus really intended that Peter was a child of Satan?

3. I think we essentially agree on the mob thing.

4. Jesus is equating harboring and cultivating anger against your brother with murder in this passage. He is clarifying the law, laying down the truth that it is not 'good enough' to simply avoiding commiting murder. That anger that desires harm to and condemns your brother is also sinfull.

5. My point is that David is singing a hymn, and Jesus is teaching about the law. If David's Psalm and Jesus's teaching contradict, I think Jesus's teaching is more relevant. The purpose of David's hymn is the expression of righteous anger on the part of a warrior doing God's will. The purpose of Christ's teaching is to further explain the reality of the law to people who were using it to serve their own purposes.

6. My fault for an utter lack of clairty in that argument. My point is that Paul is saying that Sin is not who a person is, it is something that dwells within the flesh...not the spirit. I'm not trying to say that the flesh is foriegn, but we are instructed to crucify the flesh (meaning our sinfull selves) and live in the spirit.

I definitely don't mean to contort scripture, but I am guilty of applying oversimplified interpretation here. Sorry...and my spelling sucks today

I understand the intent behind your arguments. Many christians err on the side of being tolorant. In the process they end up kind of granting a sort of carte blanche pardon that doesn't really address sin and rewrites scripture to simply say that sin doesn't matter. Unfortunately I used to do the same thing, simply sort of pretend that sin didn't exist.

I think taking it to the point that you read into scripture and claim it mandates that you hate others is reacting too strongly in the other direction. It sounds very much like a backlash against annoying 'Jesus said Judge Not" arguments. I am not claiming that the Christian is not to judge, nor that he is to tolorate or ignore sin. I am claiming that the Christian judges out of love, and that harboring the anger and condemnation that occurs when one actively hates his brother is harmfull to one's soul. Righteous anger aside, and yes there is definitely a place for righteous anger....hatred is bad for you.

 

[intro2faith]

Army of One, I'll address your points in order.

1. I'm not suggesting you tear anything out of your Bible. I'm suggesting you look at the intent of passages and compare them with the rest of the book before using them as proof texts for an argument.

2. Everyone is a Child of God...Satan is incapable of creating anything. Jesus is using a harsh rebuke to try and correct someone. He is letting them now by the actions they are serving Satan, not God. He even uses this on his closest friend Peter at one point. Do you think that Jesus really intended that Peter was a child of Satan?

3. I think we essentially agree on the mob thing.

4. Jesus is equating harboring and cultivating anger against your brother with murder in this passage. He is clarifying the law, laying down the truth that it is not 'good enough' to simply avoiding commiting murder. That anger that desires harm to and condemns your brother is also sinfull.

5. My point is that David is singing a hymn, and Jesus is teaching about the law. If David's Psalm and Jesus's teaching contradict, I think Jesus's teaching is more relevant. The purpose of David's hymn is the expression of righteous anger on the part of a warrior doing God's will. The purpose of Christ's teaching is to further explain the reality of the law to people who were using it to serve their own purposes.

6. My fault for an utter lack of clairty in that argument. My point is that Paul is saying that Sin is not who a person is, it is something that dwells within the flesh...not the spirit. I'm not trying to say that the flesh is foriegn, but we are instructed to crucify the flesh (meaning our sinfull selves) and live in the spirit.

I definitely don't mean to contort scripture, but I am guilty of applying oversimplified interpretation here. Sorry...and my spelling sucks today

I understand the intent behind your arguments. Many christians err on the side of being tolorant. In the process they end up kind of granting a sort of carte blanche pardon that doesn't really address sin and rewrites scripture to simply say that sin doesn't matter. Unfortunately I used to do the same thing, simply sort of pretend that sin didn't exist.

I think taking it to the point that you read into scripture and claim it mandates that you hate others is reacting too strongly in the other direction. It sounds very much like a backlash against annoying 'Jesus said Judge Not" arguments. I am not claiming that the Christian is not to judge, nor that he is to tolorate or ignore sin. I am claiming that the Christian judges out of love, and that harboring the anger and condemnation that occurs when one actively hates his brother is harmfull to one's soul. Righteous anger aside, and yes there is definitely a place for righteous anger....hatred is bad for you.

:BRAVO: :thumb:

 

[Balder]

Intro,

Bad rep points communicate a message to me. Would you like to communicate with me verbally as well? If you don't, that's fine, but I'm willing to discuss and debate this difference of perspective if you are.

Peace,

Balder

 

[missedmarks]

Poly,

Jesus said, ""You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing {than others?} Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Jesus appears to be changing directions here, introducing something new, not simply reiterating the old perspectives preserved in scripture (which you are quoting here). Is this not really the case?

Jesus isn't changing directions or introducing something new. He is stripping away the misunderstandings and misuse of God's law and getting it back to it's original intent. For the most part man prefers to have God under his control, with simple and easy to follow rules that he can gauge his performance off of. The Sermon on the Mount is essentialy Jesus showing how following the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law is a failure. He is not introducing a new way of doing things, but he is getting to the bottom of what the law is really about. He is talking about making God's desires your desires and then righteousness will be the result. He is discussing Making ones whole being in accordance with the law rather then mere outward observance.

 

[Army of One]

Army of One, I'll address your points in order.

1. I'm not suggesting you tear anything out of your Bible. I'm suggesting you look at the intent of passages and compare them with the rest of the book before using them as proof texts for an argument.

I was being sarcastic when I said that, and perhaps wrongly so (having to deal with Beanie has put me in a foul mood). But I stand by my point that I am looking at the rest of scripture when considering this topic. And I see numerous passages that justify hatred in certain situations. Now, those would be rare situations, but they exist nonetheless. For example, when I see the scumbag that just molested Shasta and killed her brother, I hate that person. I hate those that would harm an innocent child like that or would cause a child to stray from God. And I think Jesus would agree, in light of His saying that, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

2. Everyone is a Child of God...Satan is incapable of creating anything. Jesus is using a harsh rebuke to try and correct someone. He is letting them now by the actions they are serving Satan, not God. He even uses this on his closest friend Peter at one point. Do you think that Jesus really intended that Peter was a child of Satan?

But when you say that everyone is a child of God, it implies that everyone is a part of God's family and will all be saved, regardless of how much they hate and reject Him. I hope that is not what your saying. And I am not contending that Satan created anyone, because obviously he didn't. I'm merely saying exactly what you have said; that they are serving Satan instead of God. I was using the term "father" in the same sense that Jesus used in when addressing the Pharisees. Obviously He wasn't using in a literal fashion, and neither was I.

3. I think we essentially agree on the mob thing.

Good stuff.

4. Jesus is equating harboring and cultivating anger against your brother with murder in this passage. He is clarifying the law, laying down the truth that it is not 'good enough' to simply avoiding commiting murder. That anger that desires harm to and condemns your brother is also sinfull.

I agree. But I would add that Jesus' words in that passage are in the context of being angry "without a cause". Otherwise, He was being hypocritical, because He was angry on several occasions (as were the prophets and apostles).

5. My point is that David is singing a hymn, and Jesus is teaching about the law. If David's Psalm and Jesus's teaching contradict, I think Jesus's teaching is more relevant. The purpose of David's hymn is the expression of righteous anger on the part of a warrior doing God's will. The purpose of Christ's teaching is to further explain the reality of the law to people who were using it to serve their own purposes.

But David's hymn is a part of the inspired Word of God. Do you think that his psalms are not inspired? How is his praise in Psalm 139 any less authoritative than his predictions concerning the Messiah in Psalm 16 and 22? I don't see how David's psalms and Jesus' teaching contradict.

6. My fault for an utter lack of clairty in that argument. My point is that Paul is saying that Sin is not who a person is, it is something that dwells within the flesh...not the spirit. I'm not trying to say that the flesh is foriegn, but we are instructed to crucify the flesh (meaning our sinfull selves) and live in the spirit.

I appreciate the clarification, but I would still disagree. The passages I quoted earlier, from Jeremiah and Proverbs, as well as Jesus' sayings in Luke 6:45, Matt. 7:15-20, Matt. 15:19, Matt. 12:35, all indicate the opposite of what you are saying. They clearly teach that it is the person (their heart) that is wicked. Hence it will be the person that is punished on Judgment Day, not just their sin.

I definitely don't mean to contort scripture, but I am guilty of applying oversimplified interpretation here. Sorry...and my spelling sucks today

I understand the intent behind your arguments. Many christians err on the side of being tolorant. In the process they end up kind of granting a sort of carte blanche pardon that doesn't really address sin and rewrites scripture to simply say that sin doesn't matter. Unfortunately I used to do the same thing, simply sort of pretend that sin didn't exist

I think taking it to the point that you read into scripture and claim it mandates that you hate others is reacting too strongly in the other direction. It sounds very much like a backlash against annoying 'Jesus said Judge Not" arguments. I am not claiming that the Christian is not to judge, nor that he is to tolorate or ignore sin. I am claiming that the Christian judges out of love, and that harboring the anger and condemnation that occurs when one actively hates his brother is harmfull to one's soul. Righteous anger aside, and yes there is definitely a place for righteous anger....hatred is bad for you.

I agree with what you're saying, and I have no doubt that you are not the type to hide behind "Judge Not". I just don't quite understand why you are unwilling to accept what is plainly taught in the Bible about "Hate". By the way, when the Bible talks about hating, it's in the context of hating the wicked, the blood thirsty, etc. Of course we shouldn't hate our brothers in Christ. Just as anger is appropriate in some situations, so is hatred (as rare as those situations may be).

 

[Balder]

Jesus isn't changing directions or introducing something new. He is stripping away the misunderstandings and misuse of God's law and getting it back to it's original intent. For the most part man prefers to have God under his control, with simple and easy to follow rules that he can gauge his performance off of. The Sermon on the Mount is essentialy Jesus showing how following the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law is a failure. He is not introducing a new way of doing things, but he is getting to the bottom of what the law is really about. He is talking about making God's desires your desires and then righteousness will be the result. He is discussing Making ones whole being in accordance with the law rather then mere outward observance.

Would it be fair to say he is introducing a fuller perspective, then? A deeper expression of the spirit of the law?

From my point of view, the Bible seems to preserve several "orders" of moral thinking, rather than representing a single moral perspective. The "orders" of moral thinking mirror developments that have occurred in other cultures as well, and they are also observable in the simple maturational process of human beings.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that God literally commanded genocide in the OT? Do you think he endorsed the extermination of communities and the murder of pagan infants, at least on several occasions? If so, how does this square with your overall understanding of his nature?

It appears to me that Army of One is arguing for an interpretive approach which compromises the moral integrity of the Christian tradition/worldview.

 

[intro2faith]

Intro,

Bad rep points communicate a message to me. Would you like to communicate with me verbally as well? If you don't, that's fine, but I'm willing to discuss and debate this difference of perspective if you are.

Peace,

Balder

Sorry, but this paragraph really bugged me:

"Jesus, in this vision, could just have easily have led campaigns of slaughter on Roman villages, spearing babies and cutting down old folks, as he could have brought healing to the lost and suffering masses. He didn't, not because he was morally above such things or because he saw anything wrong with them, but because this particular act didn't serve his immediate "purposes."

Jesus is morally above such things. He does see something wrong with killing innocent little children. I just think it's terrible that you would insinuate that Jesus would have done those things if it had suited His "purpose".

I don't normally give a lot of bad rep points...but that one REALLY got to me.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Intro,

I'm sorry for the offense it caused; I wanted to make a point by juxtaposing some rather jarring images. The image of the "commander" who leads his people into villages to destroy all the men, women, and children there are taken from some Old Testament passages, which depict God as the instigator, leader, and/or supporter of such cruel and excessive campaigns. I have had discussions with people here who have told me that Jesus (in spirit) was effectively "in" on those genocidal campaigns in the OT, being inseparable from God. The moral "picture" we get of God in the life and teachings of Jesus does not appear to be in accord with this other vision of God as the commander of such campaigns of slaughter (which some people here have defended as "necessary" for the accomplishment of his purposes, such as the establishment of his kingdom or some other related aim).

I actually do not think Jesus would command or be involved in the killing of babies, or in the destruction of Roman villages. But if you argue that there is no development of moral understanding in the Bible (including of the nature of God) -- that God really did do those things, and that they were just and right and useful for his ultimate purposes -- then you do sort of have to come to that conclusion.

I raise the jarring image because I think this sort of thinking compromises the moral depth and integrity of Christianity and of the vision of kenotic agape that (I believe) Jesus taught and embodied.

Peace,
Balder

 

[wickwoman]

So when Paul says to abhor evil, he really meant "abhor abhorrence"? Ummm,......

Abhor means to have a strong aversion to or to be in horror of something. Which is a more cognitive function, wouldn't you say? Whereas hatred is something that is the opposite of love who's origin we traditionally do not place in the brain but in a more warm and fuzzy place -- like the soul or what some call the heart. (But not the collection of vessels that pumps blood to the body.)

So, if you believe in the eternal soul, I think you would agree that if the "fruits of the spirit" are manifest by this "secret place" and so it stands to reason a person with rotten fruit would manifest hatred from that same place.

But, more than that, if we are to "think on these things" where does this thread fall into that category? Because, I don't see anything here that displays "virtue, good report," etc. So it appears Poly has asked us to contact something deep inside us that helps us know what "disgusts us." By doing so, I don't think it is possible to think of "virtue, good report, or praise." Do you? If so, point it out.

Past that, the edification of Beanieboy is accomplished how? By slander such as this thread? He will somehow read how disgusting Poly - a person who has no real standing in his heart or mind because of the very rude behavior displayed toward him by Poly in the past - and her cronies feel he is disgusting? Here, in the south, we have a saying about drawing flies with honey or vinegar. I think that applies here.

So, it appears Poly's motivation in making this thread was not to edify or rebuke Beanie but more to let off some steam. Which originally probably made Poly feel very good. But, I suspect Poly's not feeling so good any more. Because eating rotten fruit just causes a very bad tummy ache.

Enjoy!

 

[wickwoman]

Beanie, what then did Paul mean when he said, "Abhor that which is evil."? Was it a meaningless statement, in light of the verses that follow it? If not, what is your interpretation?

If he was referring to evil people, he needs a grammar lesson. Because, last I checked, "that which" didn't refer to a person. It refers to an object.

 

[beanieboy]

So you agree that Christians are to hate evil then? The problem you have to contend with then, is that evil cannot be seperated from the evildoer. Proverbs 23:7 says that, "for as he thinks in his heart, so is he".

I'm not a Christian. But I hate evil.
I hate murder. I hate when there is strife purposefully created, to make people fight with one another. I hate theft. (If you have ever been robbed, there is a feeling of someone having violated you, not just having stolen your things.)

But to hate the sinner?
Then I would have to hate all people.

Let me give you an example.
Poly recently started a thread that I would call gossip.
It begins with:
Who cracks you up?
Who is worth their weight in gold?

A little bit farther down, it says:
Who should you avoid like the plague?
Who is rotten to the core?

It's nothing but gossip.

So, should I hate Poly? Is Poly evil?

Christians sin, whether they say they do or not.
And when they know it's sin, and do it anyway, I would say that it is twice as offensive to God.

So, if your religion calls you to hate your neighbor, so be it.
Buddhism calls me to love my neighbor as myself, and that is what I choose.

 

[wickwoman]

Jesus is morally above such things. He does see something wrong with killing innocent little children. I just think it's terrible that you would insinuate that Jesus would have done those things if it had suited His "purpose".

Is Jesus morally superior to God? Because the OT shows God is not above such things. Before you bad rep me, why don't you check the Israelites' campaigns across the countrysides?

 

[beanieboy]

Is Jesus morally superior to God? Because the OT shows God is not above such things. Before you bad rep me, why don't you check the Israelites' campaigns across the countrysides?

Or read the Psalms that they are quoting:

Psalm 137:8-10 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

What is being argued here, Intro, is that because God hates, we are to hate. And because David is singing a song of war and praise to God, it is the word of God. Therefore, one should also be able to follow David's advice, and be blessed by going to the enemies (any non-Christian, pro-choice, homosexual, or democrat), taking their children by the feet, and cracking their heads open on the rocks. Killing children in the name of God. If David did it, then surely, it must be serving the lord.

Jesus, on the other hand, was saying, "suffer not the children, that they may come unto me." He said, "Unless you become like a child, you cannot enter the K of H."

He wasn't killing anyone, nor leading people to war.

He was searching for the lost, which brings me to my second point:
Who are the lost? They are those that belong to Christ.
But what is being argued is - only the saved are loved by God.
This is irrational under Christian thought.
Christ said he came to heal the sick, not for those who were well.
He came to find the lost, not those that were found.
But what is being argued is, only Christians are children of God - as if they have somehow earned the honor to be called a child of God.

But, who then is Christ searching for? Christians?
Why is he searching for a sheep that is the son of Satan?

Someone argued - Jesus said that the Pharisees were children of their father, Satan.
Jesus also said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan."
Is Peter literally Satan? Or is Jesus referring to how one's actions can serve God or Satan, regardless of who you claim to follow?

There is great danger on looking to yourself to be led by the bible, because you can justify hatred (God hated...), killing (God killed people, David killed people), and just about anything that our heart wants. But if we are led by the Creator, we will have a better understanding, and our goals will be in line with that of the Creator.

 

[On Fire]

Excuse me while I interject some simple truths:

-homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God

-unrepentent homosexuals are hell-bound

-Buddha was a fat man (emphasis on MAN); he can't save you