In the last post I wrote about how my journey, to atheism, started on a Bible reading challenge. Attempting to read the Bible, in its entirety, stirred up questions, within me, and these questions, once investigated, turned into doubts. The doubts, once fully pursued, turned into disbelief.
But the truth is there were always things that had bothered me about the Christian faith. Questions I had pushed aside, for many years, since these things were uncomfortable to talk (or even think) about. In this post I'd like to talk, briefly, about just on just one of those questions. For me, in fact, this was the biggie...
If God is "all loving" than why does He send so many sincere people to Hell, for all eternity, simply because they are mistaken?
Now, most Christians will tend to answer this with something along the lines of "well, you see, God is perfect so, naturally, He cannot tolerate the presence of sin in Heaven. But since God loves us SO much He provided a way out, and that's why he sent his son, Jesus, to be the punishment for our sins. If we will only accept this free gift, of salvation, than God will 'forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness'. How awesome is that?!!". What Christians really mean, by "accept this free gift", btw, is "provide inetellectual assent to the accuracy of the Bible...in particular the parts about who Jesus was, and what he said and did". Anything less is not sufficent for "salvation".
I accepted this party line, totally, for a very, very long time. But, every once in a while, I would experience some congnitive dissonance, on the concept of an eternal Hell, since the idea of punishing people for all eternity is, admittedly, a tough one to come fully to terms with. Michael W. Smith, one of my favourite musical artists growing up, captures this tension well (as it is felt by Christians) in his song "Calling Heaven"...
Chorus:
Calling heaven
Seeking mercy
Tell me there's a place for these
What of the children who have never felt a love
Tender as the morning
Nursing the bruises
And the scars that never seem to go away
What of the babies who have never left the womb
Breathing in the lifeline
Angels in waiting
Gone before they could be given wings to fly
Chorus
What of the noble who are searching for the truth
With truest of intentions
And yet they're jaded by
Hypocrisies behind cathedral walls
What of the humble and the meek that knew despair
And never got their moment
But sacrificed a life of comfort
So that others knew no pain
Chorus
What of the ones who call you Lord
But play the field
with faithless indecision
Forgive us father for we truly
Do not know what we have done
Chorus
I have a lot more to say on the issue of Hell but, in the interest of keeping each of my posts brief, and additonally focused on a single point, I'm going to leave it here, for now. Suffice it to say that, even as a Christian, I had lingering questions. I think this is the case for most Christians, but when faith is seen as the ulitmate virtue, and doubt as the ultimate "sin", these questions get shoved down, deep into your psyche, over and over and over again (until, hopefully, they just go away).
After all, questions are dangersous, since they can lead to doubt. I'm living proof of that.
If God is "all loving" than why does He send so many sincere people to Hell, for all eternity, simply because they are mistaken?
ReplyDeleteI approach these sorts of things by first challenging assumptions. For example, I lead towards annihilationism, not eternal torment, therefore your question doesn't work with me. Further, on my view, God doesn't "send" anyone to hell. We send ourselves (note that on my view, "we" refers only to those who have consciously rejected Jesus here). And God doesn't allow this "simply because we are mistaken," God allows it because a righteous God cannot ignore sin. God allows this because unrepentant, willfully sinful people have no place in an eternal and sinless kingdom.
Point being, when you challenge the assumptions of an argument, they often unravel, and I think that's the case here.
I don't expect you to become a Christian again, I'm just trying to explain why this question isn't so tough to answer. It's not a good question to found one's doubts on, IMHO (not saying you've founded your doubts on a single question, either).
Here again, it's important to remember that, in these very early stages of the blog, I am mostly trying to capture my emotional state as best I can remember it (so I'm not making arguments, per se). I do plenty of that later on though, as you already know :).
DeleteEven still, I'd like to comment further on some of what you have said...
I looked into annihilationism, during this period (I believe it was 2008), but it seemed to me that the case for it was extremely strained, from a Biblical perspective. Do you "lean toward" it because you think the Bible actually teaches the view, or is it because this is what you would prefer to be true? (Please be brutally honest with yourself on this question.) If you sincerely think it's the former, I'd love to hear more of your reasons for thinking so (either now or later on).
I realize that most Christians believe, as I did, that God doesn't send anyone to hell. In my view now though, this is mostly just a play on words. A clever framing of the issue, if you will, that permits believers to make it seem as if it's actually the non-believers own fault if they find themselves in hell someday (or annihilated). If only they hadn't been so stubborn, refusing to place their trust in Jesus Christ, submitting their lives to his perfect will...IF they had simply done so, God would gladly usher them into heaven! Why are those unbelievers so damn stubborn?!? Maybe it's because they really just want to live by their own rules (not God's)...yes, this must be the REAL reason they reject Jesus!!
Basically this is how the logic flows, and I've heard it all before (it may not be what you personally think, but it's a near perfect description of what I used to believe).
Here's the reality...most Christians believe that people go to hell (or are annihilated) because of what they do or don't give intellectual assent to, in this life, and especially with respect to events that supposedly happened two thousand years ago. If you don't happen to think the existing evidence supports that Jesus was God, performed miracles, and rose from the dead, you're not saved. Period. I write about this dynamic, and my current problems with it, in a post called "What's So Special About Belief?".
So this whole people send themselves to hell thing is a red herring, in my view. It's a giant smokescreen, intended to deflect from the real issue (that god does in fact keep people out of heaven...and for the shocking crime of not being credulous enough :)).
There are a thousand different Christianities (probably many more), so it matters not that a specific argument unravels for you personally. I hate to quote John Loftus, given your negative feelings about him, but I think he hits the nail on the head when he responds to the whole "this argument doesn't apply to MY Christianity" retort from Christians (which you have given here). He simply asks that Christians get together, form an agreement, and then get back to him on whatever that agreement happens to entail. At that stage us skeptics will gladly address only this one true version of Christianity going forward. It's an unrealistic request, of course, but to point that out is to miss the point entirely. The point is that no one post (or line of argument) could possibly reflect (much less debunk) all existing Christian views on a given topic. There are simply too many variances in existence.
I seriously hate Blogger and it's character limits. So. Annoying.
ReplyDeleteHere again, it's important to remember that, in these very early stages of the blog, I am mostly trying to capture my emotional state as best I can remember it (so I'm not making arguments, per se). I do plenty of that later on though, as you already know :).
I understand that. I'm simply trying to point out the illogic that many of these initial emotions are founded upon. In fact, your language is revealing: emotional state. It is from the seeds of these emotional states that your arguments are founded. I think there is cause for concern there, so I spoke up. You'll either see it, or you won't.
Do you "lean toward" it because you think the Bible actually teaches the view, or is it because this is what you would prefer to be true?
I think the Bible actually teaches the view, but at the same time I think the "eternal torment" concept might be better supported by church tradition. As a quick example, Romans tells us the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment. The phrase "everlasting destruction" could mean destruction or "torment" that lasts forever, but it could also mean annihilation from which one will not be restored.
Here's the reality...most Christians believe that people go to hell (or are annihilated) because of what they do or don't give intellectual assent to...
Well yeah, but I've already tried to warn you of the uselessness of engaging me as you would "most Christians." It's useless, just as it's useless for me to engage you as I would most atheists.
If you don't happen to think the existing evidence supports that Jesus was God, performed miracles, and rose from the dead, you're not saved.
True, but, you don't go to hell because and only because you failed to believe an intellectual proposition. Rather, you go to hell because you are a sinner. Or do you think it's without reason the Scriptures say even demons believe, and shudder?
So this whole people send themselves to hell thing is a red herring, in my view.
Yeah, I didn't expect you to agree with me, and I don't agree with you. A "red herring" is an irrelevant side issue intended to obscure the true matter at hand.
It's a giant smokescreen, intended to deflect from the real issue (that god does in fact keep people out of heaven...and for the shocking crime of not being credulous enough
ReplyDeleteI have no "intent" to deflect anything away from any issue. Perhaps you didn't intend that for me, but... anyways. You say God "keeps people out of heaven" but I don't see it that way. I place the responsibility on the agent. Sin + unrepentance keeps people out of heaven, not God.
I hate to quote John Loftus, given your negative feelings about him, but I think he hits the nail on the head when he responds to the whole "this argument doesn't apply to MY Christianity" retort from Christians (which you have given here). He simply asks that Christians get together, form an agreement, and then get back to him on whatever that agreement happens to entail.
Really? So, you think that Christians should agree before further discussion can take place? I think that's silly. In the same way Ray Comfort needs to cater his arguments to the model of evolution his interlocutor actually accepts, the skeptic needs to cater their arguments to the model of Christianity their interlocutor accepts. Right?
The point is that no one post (or line of argument) could possibly reflect (much less debunk) all existing Christian views on a given topic.
Of course, and I've never said or implied otherwise. However, once a Christian has clarified their views, then, the skeptic needs to address THOSE views, not OTHER views their interlocutor doesn't share. Your original question was, "If God is "all loving" than why does He send so many sincere people to Hell, for all eternity, simply because they are mistaken?"
And my response is, the question dissolves if you don't share the assumptions behind it.
Part One...
DeleteI'm simply trying to point out the illogic that many of these initial emotions are founded upon.
Yes, I understand clearly that this is what you are attempting to do. I don't think you have succeeded in doing so though, and it's often because you tend to read too much into my words. It's a mistake to treat every post as if it were an "argument", to be refuted logically. I haven't even made any arguments yet. I have only raised questions. My blog has not been that one dimensional, but your responses here strike me that way.
In fact your language is revealing: emotional state.
I suppose it would be revealing if I were attempting to hide something, but I'm not. You're overextending, in what I suspect is a misguided effort to (ultimately) stick me with the charge of rejecting my faith for emotional/illogical reasons at the root. Did I have emotions, as a Christian? Sure! But it's only much later on, in my journey, that the "foundations" of doubt are even laid. At this stage I had questions, not doubts. If you want to assert that this question or that question isn't logically legitimate, go nuts. It won't faze me. I'm not ashamed to admit that it bothered me emotionally, even as a Christian, that people were supposedly going to be tormented forever because they came to the wrong conclusions about Jesus.
I think the Bible actually teaches the view.
Fair enough. But how did you come to be convinced of this? That's what I'm asking. Please share. Is there a book you think I should read? Do you make the deeper case (for annihilationism) somehwere on your blog? These quick examples you give are not enough to justify the view, and I think the counter arguments are much, much stronger. My sense is that most annihilationists believe in the doctrine because they would prefer it to be true, and then they simply read it back into the Bible after that point. So, this is what I still suspect you are doing and you've, as of yet, given me no reason to think otherwise.
True, but, you don't go to hell because and only because you failed to believe an intellectual proposition.
I understand, but my contention here is that intellectual assent is a non-negotiable. Would you agree with this? Let me give you a hypothetical...let's say that Bob Smith admits he is a "sinner", but he also suspects that Jesus was not God (and did not rise from the dead). Can Bob go to heaven?
A "red herring" is an irrelevant side issue intended to obscure the true matter at hand.
This is pretty much how I see it, but perhaps it was not your conscious intention to obscure the true matter at hand. I don't mean to imply that you are being devious. I just think we fundamentally disagree as to what the "true matter at hand" is (and is not).
Part Two...
DeleteYou say God "keeps people out of heaven" but I don't see it that way.
Yeah, I know, but I love it when Christians make it sound as if God's hands are tied. Couldn't he just forgive people? Why require a blood sacrifice? And why require intellectual assent to his very existence? (See my previous point.) I talk about a lot of this stuff in later posts, so keep reading.
I place the responsibility on the agent. Sin + unrepentance keeps people out of heaven, not God.
You're just parroting Christian theology here. This is precisely the view that I am taking issue with, so it's not enough to simply assert (and repeat) it. I already know what you believe on this. It's exactly what I used to believe, too.
So, you think that Christians should agree before further discussion can take place? I think that's silly.
I agree that it's silly. This is why I said it was an "unrealistic request". I was responding to your contention that my post falls apart, by simply pointing out that it only falls apart for certain people (such as annihilationists and universalists). The questions I raise here are still perfectly valid for the other 90 plus percent of Christians who accept the doctrine of eternal damnation. It is you who is in the minority here. In other words...I agree that the question dissolves, for you personally. You are not my "target market", in this case :).
The skeptic needs to cater their arguments to the model of Christianity their interlocutor accepts. Right?
Right. I am perfectly willing to do this, in one on one conversations, like the one(s) that you & I are having. But I may not write a post about every little nuance of Christian doctrine, that's all, since the mere thought of it makes me feel like taking a very long nap :).
And on the present issue I have already responded to your particular nuance of belief...I contend that your belief (in annihilationism) is not well supported by the Bible, and this is in fact why the vast majority of Christians reject it. I remain very open to taking another (and closer) look at the evidence.
Doggonitt, I forgot to either bold (or "quote") your words again. Sorry about that. But I'm sure you can distinguish, rather easily, between your words and mine :). Hope this isn't too confusing.
DeleteI don't mind the lack of bold, don't worry about it. The structure suffices.
ReplyDeleteRE 23 September, 2012 11:10 AM:
I don't think you have succeeded in doing so though,
Well now I'm a little confused, because in the other post, you said you understand my point about not basing doubt on incredulity.
It's a mistake to treat every post as if it were an "argument", to be refuted logically.
I'm not treating these posts as arguments, and I properly understand them as the pre-boil bubbles they are. Hopefully we can move past this point.
You're overextending, in what I suspect is a misguided effort to (ultimately) stick me with the charge of rejecting my faith for emotional/illogical reasons at the root.
I find your charge of "overextending" unfounded and ironic. Unfounded, because I have no desire to do what you imply, and ironic because you suggest I'm "overextending" while you attribute impure motives where none exist. To me, if we are to be "respectful" interlocutors, then we must refrain from attributing motives to one another. Would you agree?
If you want to assert that this question or that question isn't logically legitimate, go nuts. It won't faze me.
I'm not sure how to take that. Can you clarify what you mean there? If pointing out logical flaws and faulty assumptions "won't faze you," how can I get you to change your mind on anything? What *WOULD* phase you?
Do you make the deeper case (for annihilationism) somehwere on your blog?
I started a draft on the issue a year or two back, and haven't finished it yet.
These quick examples you give are not enough to justify the view, and I think the counter arguments are much, much stronger.
Justification is subjective. I didn't expect, nor was I attempting, to convince you. I was just explaining a few quick reasons why *I* lean as I do, but I'll tell you what: if you cite the "counter arguments" you allude to, I'll gladly tackle each one (just be sure to remind me in the event I don't return to this thread anytime soon).
Yeah, I know, but I love it when Christians make it sound as if God's hands are tied.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric won't persuade me, and it will actually make me lose interest in dialog. I will give you the utmost respect and charity, all I ask for is the same in return.
Couldn't he just forgive people?
Yes, and He does.
Why require a blood sacrifice?
One reason is that a righteous God cannot let sin go unpunished.
And why require intellectual assent to his very existence?
Belief (intellectual assent) catalyzes forgiveness.
You're just parroting Christian theology here. This is precisely the view that I am taking issue with, so it's not enough to simply assert (and repeat) it.
Sure, if that was my actual response to an argument you made, but you're not making arguments yet—remember? I'm not "parroting" anything, I'm highlighting a difference in the assumptions we share, then suggesting that your questions are only relevant to those who share your assumptions. You seem to have mistaken my clarification as an argument.
The questions I raise here are still perfectly valid for the other 90 plus percent of Christians who accept the doctrine of eternal damnation. It is you who is in the minority here.
Just curious: Is that an actual percentage or a guess?
"Well now I'm a little confused, because in the other post, you said you understand my point about not basing doubt on incredulity."
DeleteYes, but I don't agree that I was ever doing this to begin with. The verse gave me pause, and it made God seem petty, but I was aware then (as I am now) that other potential explanations exist.
"I find your charge of "overextending" unfounded and ironic."
I too am fine to just move past this point. No offense is intended whatsoever. You tend to word things very strongly, which is fine (I'm sure I do the same sometimes), but this is especially dangerous when combined with (what I perceive to be) your tendency to read into my comments things that aren't there.
"Rhetoric won't persuade me, and it will actually make me lose interest in dialog."
I know I worded this in a very strong way (hey, I just warned you I do that too :)), but actually I didn't intend it to even be rhetorical in nature. Christians quite commonly say things that imply (to me) that God's hands are tied. Even Norman Geisler does this (repeatedly) in his recent book, "If God, Why Evil" (keep reading for my two part review). I know you say you're not the average Christian, but this is precisely how I interpret your claim, for example, that God doesn't keep anyone out of heaven. I won't take the time now to get into other examples, where this commonly comes up, but trust me it's a recurring theme so I expect we'll discuss it again in a different context. To me, God does indeed "keep people out of heaven" (for not being credulous enough). This might sound like more rhetoric to you, but I think it's a legitimate point.
"Belief (intellectual assent) catalyzes forgiveness."
Really? Here again you are making it sound as if God's hands are tied. I know this isn't your intention and, as you say, you're just highlighting a difference in our assumptions. That's fine, in so far as it goes, but I look forward to hearing you defend this claim in the future.
"You seem to have mistaken my clarification as an argument."
I think we can agree that the logic in this post only really applies to those who believe in eternal torment. But, to re-iterate, the thing I took issue with initially is your very strong wording. You said it "unraveled". Well, it might have unraveled for you personally, but you didn't phrase it in that more nuanced way. (Remember, it is you who is in the minority on this issue. I barely knew any annihilationists, during my twenty plus years as a Christian, and I "got out" plenty :). It's a minority view, to say the least, from my purview.) Do you make any effort to convince your fellow Christians that eternal torment is a false doctrine? Just wondering. If you ever write more on this subject please let me know. I picked 90 plus percent because it felt like a very safe (low ball) guess...I suspect the percentage is much higher, but I'd be curious to know what the official numbers are. I could be wrong on those.
"You asked if Bob would still suffer the consequences of his unrepentant sin. On my view, yes."
Exactly. Do you now understand what I was trying to say? (And why I have a problem?) If not, I can clarify.
cl, It's never my intention to lack charity, in literally anything that I say, so when you perceive certain statements in that way please just tell me and I'll know when (and how) to back off.
Hey I can't find it now, but somewhere in the fray you asked a question about "Bob" who knew he was a sinner but would not accept Christ's provision (IOW Bob wouldn't assent intellectually). You asked if Bob would still suffer the consequences of his unrepentant sin. On my view, yes.
ReplyDeleteYou asked about writers on traditionalism / annihilationism. As a springboard, I suggest Edward Fudge and Glenn Peoples.
ReplyDeleteYou tend to word things very strongly, which is fine (I'm sure I do the same sometimes), but this is especially dangerous when combined with (what I perceive to be) your tendency to read into my comments things that aren't there.
That's where I need your help: can you show me examples of me reading things into comments that aren't there? I don't see them.
Also, just so I know I'm not crazy, haven't you read things into my comments that aren't there? For example, didn't you read one comment as having the "function of keeping the faithful believing?" Or, another as having an impure motive to accuse you of abandoning your faith for purely emotional reasons?
Christians quite commonly say things that imply (to me) that God's hands are tied.
The charge of rhetoric applies to what you mean by "God's hands are tied." Why not attack the core concept instead of an rhetorical device which affords so much room for misinterpretation? For me, to say "God's hands are tied" means that God can't take action X because it would violate one or more of God's qualities. Example: God can't just grant sinners eternal life because that would obviate God's justice. Another way of saying this is that it's logically impossible for God to take certain courses of action. The Bible affirms this in Hebrews (impossible for God to lie). So, when I hear you scoff at Christians who imply that "God's hand are tied," what I *REALLY* hear is a disguised attack on the concept of logical possibility. However, I suspect that's not what you intend, which is why I suggest more precision with the language.
To me, God does indeed "keep people out of heaven" (for not being credulous enough).
That's fine, but you haven't given any reason to believe this, and I've given reasons NOT to believe it (from a Biblical standpoint). I understand that you reject those reasons, but then the burden falls to you to justify that move.
That's fine, in so far as it goes, but I look forward to hearing you defend this claim in the future.
The defense is implicit in the claim, which is why I opted to be so concise, but I'm happy to unpack: Why can't you convince yourself to jump off a building and fly away? It's not because you *CAN'T* fly away, it's because you don't believe you'll fly away. Similarly, how can one meaningfully repent to an entity they do not believe in?
I think we can agree that the logic in this post only really applies to those who believe in eternal torment.
ReplyDeleteAlmost. I can agree with you that your question only applies to traditionalists, but, there's no logic or logical argument in this post (that is not meant as an insult, either, but a reminder of a concession you already made). All you've done in this post is express incredulity via a question. I understand that this was the intent: to simply explain how your house of cards started it's crash. So, I agree that your question only applies to the traditionalist.
You said it "unraveled". Well, it might have unraveled for you personally, but you didn't phrase it in that more nuanced way..
That's false, and only a partial representation of what I said. Why not quote me more fully? I said, "...I lean towards annihilationism, not eternal torment, therefore your question doesn't work with me. [...] Point being, when you challenge the assumptions of an argument, they often unravel, and I think that's the case here." Don't you think that is more nuanced and qualifying than the rigid, across-the-board, "it unraveled" assertion you just incorrectly attributed to me?
Do you make any effort to convince your fellow Christians that eternal torment is a false doctrine?
No.
If you ever write more on this subject please let me know.
I intend to, and I have you to thank for the fire under me buns. As I asked, do you intend to cite the "counter arguments" you alluded to previously?
Exactly. Do you now understand what I was trying to say? (And why I have a problem?) If not, I can clarify.
It seems to me the only problem is that you don't think that's fair, or you don't think that's what a loving God would do. If that's not what you were trying to say, then yes, please clarify.
It's never my intention to lack charity, in literally anything that I say, so when you perceive certain statements in that way please just tell me and I'll know when (and how) to back off.
Fair enough, and same here, so please do the same.
Fair enough and, for the record, I didn't go back and re-read your original response (which is why I didn't quote you more fully). Admittedly, I should have done both, and I'll try to be more careful in the future. My time has been quite limited lately so, frankly, I've been writing these responses off the top of my head while multi-tasking (haha). (NEVER a good idea...and not an excuse, just an assurance that I'm not trying to be intentionally deceptive.) This sort of hurried approach, of course, tends to lead inadvertently to these sorts of careless errors and oversights.
DeleteSo it seems that I misread you, and you were making a more nuanced argument than I gave you credit for. Please accept my apologies. And yes, of course, I do sometimes read things into your comments as well!
I have little problem with the annihilationist view generally, in the sense that I feel almost no compulsion to argue against it. As I said though, it strikes me as pretty rare in Christian circles (or at least in the ones that I have travelled in). Why don't you ever try to convince your fellow Christians that eternal torment is false? When I was a Christian, we used to debate about doctrines for fun :). Is it because you "lean toward" the view, but are not entirely convinced one way or the other? Which Edward Fudge or Glenn Peoples book is best, in your opinion? I hesitate to critique annihilationism too heavily, until I re-familiarize myself with the arguments on both sides. It's been at least 3 years since I've read much of anything on the topic. (And it rarely to never comes up, in either the atheist or Christian books that I tend to gravitate to now.)
I'll leave the rest alone, for the moment, because it would take me a little more time to respond to some of the other points. Have you read my post called "Burn In Hell!" yet? Take a look, when you get a chance, and perhaps we can pick up the hell conversation over there. I think it will help you to understand my current views (on hell) a little better, although I realize that you will still take issue with them.
It's at http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/burn-in-hell.html.
Cheers for now.
You know, I think the "bold" kinda looks like crap, so I'm going to start italicizing your comments (Blogger, in all it's awesomeness, doesn't accept blockquotes, does it?)
ReplyDelete"My time has been quite limited lately so, frankly, I've been writing these responses off the top of my head while multi-tasking (haha). (NEVER a good idea...and not an excuse, just an assurance that I'm not trying to be intentionally deceptive.)"
No worries, I've been there and done that countless times (I usually regret it, too).
"So it seems that I misread you, and you were making a more nuanced argument than I gave you credit for. Please accept my apologies. And yes, of course, I do sometimes read things into your comments as well!"
Again, no worries, I'm not mad or suspicious or anything like that. I was genuinely wondering. Just because I thought you read something into my words doesn't mean you did, which is why I asked. It's the internet. It's a tough medium for communication. We can't see each other, or pick up on subtle cues.
"Why don't you ever try to convince your fellow Christians that eternal torment is false?"
The main reason is because I'm not sure traditionalism is false, and I don't want to mislead people about God's word. That's why I'm careful to say things like, "I lean towards annihilationism" as opposed to, say, "traditionalism is false." Also, I really don't associate with too many Christians, where I'm at in life right now. When I do, it doesn't come up. When you first asked the question, my gut response was along the lines of, "They've already repented, it doesn't matter," but since we've been talking I've thought more about how traditionalism is a roadblock for many, so, I think I should spend more time on the issue.
"Take a look, when you get a chance, and perhaps we can pick up the hell conversation over there."
Will do, thanks for the link.