The newly-publicized gospels of Thomas and Judas once again show a differing mindset between Atheists and theists. An Atheist sees this as new evidence — stuff to be considered, like a new piece of scientific data – about how the bible was formed and assembled two millenia ago. Christians are quick to launch press releases stating that nothing, including hard evidence, would ever change their mind about their mythos.I haven’t read the Gospel of Judas (or the available parts) yet, but I really liked the Gospel of Thomas – probably because it completely lacks religion.
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O'Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
There was a letter to the editer in my local paper this week (don’t remember if it was the Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News) that I had to respect, regarding this topic as well as The Davinci Code. She basically stated that by stating that the bibble was inerrant and perfect, it basically made the book (and by extension, the religion) a “dead” one. These people are so afraid that they might be wrong that they will do anything and everything to try to keep any dissent out.
gospel shospel, who cares?
I have a gospel?
Who Knew!
I think we’ve been reading the gospel according to tomwright for quite a while on this blog.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist the setup.
Even if the gospel of Judas said to forgive others, turn the other cheek, and treat others as you would have them treat you,… it wouldn’t keep Christians from judging, hating, going out of their way to impose their will on you.
…because they don’t read the bible, they only quote the bible.
R4D, RA,
Thanks for the feedback and references.
Sounds like as good a method as any. “God decided which ones stayed on the table. It’s a miracle!”
r4d:
Well, here’s a link to the codices:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html
& yes, there was a lot of pseudipigrapha back then. Thousands? Don’t know about that. A lot of stuff got torched.
I forget who said this, but I read once, that the way the Nicene council voted on which books to keep, they piled all the books on a table, & whatever didn’t fall off, they kept.
There was a review of the Gospel of Judas in last week’s New Yorker. It sounds really freaky.
It begins during the last supper – Jesus busts out laughing as soon as the disciples start to pray. Everybody gets mad at chuckling Jesus, everyone except Judas, who says to JC “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo.” So Jesus is impressed with Judas and decides to confide all the secrets of the universe, like Jesus isn’t really the son of Yahweh (a false god), but an avatar of Adam’s third son, Seth. Oh, and Barbelo is the name that the gnostics gave to the Celestial Mother who resides in the Land of Barbelo (a beautiful realm ‘beyond the stars’) with her children and another god called “The Self Generated One.”
The interesting thing about the GOJ is that it lets Judas off of the hook. Jesus wants Judas to turn him in (kinda like in ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’), for being sacrificed is, apparently, the only way Jesus can get back to Barbelo.
Bored yet?
The thing to keep in mind when it comes to these gnostic gospels is that there were thousands of them. They were the ancient equivalent of a pulp fiction novel, and should be read with about as much seriousness (this includes the canonical gospels as well.)
Speaking of pulp fiction. . .
Great movie.
Off topic but I saw this story about the love of our lord for the small children:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12467604/?GT1=7938
Alex.
R4D
I’ve heard this number quoted a few times, but do not know of its reliability. Do you have a source for it? The only non-canonical gospels I could find (admittedly a short search) are:
* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel of Truth
* Gospel of Philip
* Gospel of Peter
* Gospel of Mary Magdalene
* Gospel of the Egyptians
* Gospel of the Hebrews
* Gospel of James
* Gospel of Judas
Surprise! The Judas book doesn’t agree with the other “gospels”. The accepted gospels don’t agree with each other either. Doesn’t this totally discredit the entire mythology? Or do the christians think the invisible space monkey is a liar? You would have to think one or the other. Considering any of it to be true would be pretty silly considering their own texts.
I hope that more of these early texts are found. It will tell us nothing about god or jesus, but will tell us allot about history and the influences that turned a mythology into a world religion.
The Trinity
Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?
And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.
And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?
Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”
And Jesus answering, said, “What?”
HeatheNZ,
Maybe I just heard it quoted a number of times too, now that I think about it. I remember watching that Frontline documentary “From Jesus to Christ” and them saying that there are all these other gospels that we know about second-hand from other ancient writings and even ancient graffiti. There seems to have been a gospel craze in the first and second centuries.
The gnostic texts you mention were all discovered at one time by a guy named Muhammad Ali (no, not that one.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
Bernarda-
Exactly!
One question you can ask your christian neighbors is “what do you think of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD?”
Besides no knowing the bible, they will almost certainly not know of this. Ask any TV or other preachers that you know.
But the Council of Nicaea was the first bureacratic committee that decided on the christian canon. They just voted on what they thought should be considered christian and what should not.
Simple. Though the christians have never explained how these guys knew what god meant or wanted.
Those who lost the committee vote were declared heretics. Simple.
Why did this committee choose four gospels and reject the others? Politics. Simple.
Anybody who believes in the New Testament simply believes in the decisions of a focus group.
I think an important interpretation of the gnostic gospels is that they try to convey a higher level spiritual message. As such, they are not (supposedly) literal accounts of Jesus’ doings, and are therefore, not included in the canon we call the bible (because it is only a collection of smaller books). Hence the term gnostic, or knowledge.
But seriously, a new gospel? So what. I am about as impressed as finding out there is a new spiderman.
Most serious christians I have met are perfectly aware of the Council of Nicaea, and this awareness poses no threat to the faith of a true believer. The apologetic rationalization is simple: God was in control.
r4d:
You mean the big kahuna fixed the vote?
Now we know where Shrub got the idea in 2000.
jesus christ you people are smart!!!seriously
Yep. I’ve heard that one too – God fixed the election. From my own father, no less.
My father-in-law says stuff like that too… Maybe god wanted Kerry to be president and we defied god’s will. I find it hard to be that fatalistic about this was god’s will and that was god’s will. My response to people saying that god made sure that everything that’s in the bible is in there is how do we know that god doesn’t want me to question it? This, of course, is not really useful to the atheist, but I find it an engaging way to discuss belief and how we believe.
That’s one of reasons I really enjoy stuff like this. I love reading about all the new things being discovered about my own religion. I think there is something divine in wrestling with one’s own ideas and wrestling with accepted notions or fiats that exist within a community. What is god’s will? My best answer so far is to take care of each other. Hmmmm… I guess we didn’t need the council of Nicea to tell us that. I know I’ve said this before, but check out “When Jesus Became God”… it’s a fascinating look at the Nicean Creed and from what I remember it’s not written from a christian perspective… I think it’s an attempt of a straight up historic account and the political environment at the time. For other interesting reading check out Elaine Pagels.
Maybe God wants us to be atheists! I would if I were God, for if I were God I of course would have to be an atheist because it would be unreasonable for me to believe in anything higher than myself. So, if my goal were to create rational beings in my own image, they would have to be atheists as well.
It’s a good thing I didn’t grow up to be a theologian.
I knew it! I’ve been going against god’s will all along
You’re a better man that I Rainbows.
that I = than I
d’oh!
r4d:
But you’d have to believe in yourself, right?
Hmmm…we might have a valid argument for self-worship right there.
I don’t need much more of an excuse beyond my dashing good looks.
I know it’s a little of topic, but did you see Sam Harris on the Colbert Report? It reminded me of many of the conversations we have here. You can see the video here:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml
of topic = off topic
man, I’m having an off day. Stupid fingers.
If you believe that God wanted Bush to be elected, you have to believe he ALSO wanted Clinton elected!
Zac said:
Wait a minute!! There’s a new Spiderman???
Have you ever looked up the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were written between 200 BC and 300 Ad and not one thing about Jesus. This from a messianic sect of scholars who were well versed in all things prophetic. Kinda makes you wonder.
Woops I meant between 200 BC and 68 AD
Councel of Nicaea…
All-time favourite of the atheists.
Read about it a little. The Gospels that were already being used in different churches (strangely enough almost all churches had for some “bizarre” reason chosen the same gospels )were chosen to be canon.
The canon was established on the basis of the gospels in use not the other way around.
BTW, you seem to presuppose that the councel chose the “wrong” gospels.
Why is that?
BTW 2 the gospel of Judas was created by a gnostic sect in the 2nd century. Was therefore never authorized by any apostles.
Goose:
Oh good, argument from popularity.
Nope. All of ‘em are wrong.
Since none of the Synoptics or John were ‘authorized’ by anyone (can’t even prove the apostles existed), it’s a moot point at best.
Reluctant
Just as valid/invalid as your claim that the canon was “chosen” at the council of N
Prove it.
The original creed/gospel was authorized by the apostles since they were around and used it in the early churches.
Sigh… what makes you think the apostles didn’t exist?
Goose:
Hey, that was something I read somewhere, can’t even recall who said it.
Moi? Oh, nonononono. You’re the used car salesman here. Sell me this Edsel.
Prove it.
-SIGH-…okay, but you’re not going to listen anyways, don’t know why I bother:
http://www.geo_cities.com/paulntobin/guess.html#anon
Conclusion on the Anonymity of the Gospels
The gospels were never referred to by the names we now known them by from the end of the first century to the middle of the second century. The suprascript titles found in today’s gospels (“According to Mark” etc) were not part of the original manuscripts. Around 155 CE, Justin Martyr began to refer to “Memoirs of the Apostles” and to written “Gospels” and perhaps to the Gospel of Mark as the ‘Memoirs of Peter”. The year 180 CE marks the first time all four gospels were first explicitly named and quoted (by Irenaeus). Following that the practice took hold and later references begin to cite the gospels from which the passages are taken from.”
Also:
http://www.geo_cities.com/paulntobin/guess.html#unknown
Evidence That the Traditional Attribution is Spurious
Apart from the external evidence presented above, internal evidence of the gospels themselves show that these attribution of authorship to apostles (Matthew and John) or close associates of the apostles (Mark and Luke) are spurious. We have provided a thorough evaluation of this internal evidence elsewhere in this website. Here we will simply recap the evidence:
* The gospel of Mark betrays an ignorance of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs to the extent that it excludes anyone who would have lived there as the author. The same mistakes also excludes the possibility that Peter would have been the source of this gospel. The structure of the gospel shows that it is made up mainly of individual originally unconnected episodes relating to Jesus’ life.
* It can be demonstrated that a substantial portion of the gospel of Matthew is copied from Mark. It is unlikely in the extreme that an eyewitness (such as the apostle Matthew) would have depended on a source (Mark) that clearly has no first hand knowledge of the situation. Other elements within the gospel of Matthew – its lack of vivid eye-witness account, its preoccupation with issues that arose only towards the end of the first century and its systematic, non-biographical form – further excludes the possibility that it could have been the work of an apostle.
* The evidence that a person called Luke, who was a physician and a companion of Paul did not write the third gospel is compelling. The information about “Luke” is derived from source known to be spurious. The presentation of Paul by Acts is at odds with what can be derived from the genuine Pauline epistles, making it unlikely that such a presentation could have been provided by a close companion of Paul. The “we-passages” in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15, 21:1-8 and 27:1-28:16) have been shown to be a literary device of ancient sea travel stories used for rhetorical effect and does not imply that the author of Luke-Acts was actually present during those sea travels.
* A convergence of various lines of evidence exclude John the son of Zebedee as the author of the gospel attributed to him. Firstly he is not explicitly named as the author. What we know of John elsewhere suggests that he lacked the educational capability to construct such a deeply mystical and theological work. The identity of John with the “beloved disciple” is flawed as in parallel scenes with the synoptics, the former is always not mentioned. In the first twenty chapters, the “beloved disciple” is at best claimed, not as an author, but as the eye-witness source of the gospel. However the content of the gospel excludes the possibility that it could have been written by an eye-witness.
(will need to remove the underline in geo_cities, BTW)
But of course, you’ll dismiss all of this w/some sophistic wave of your hand, as someone who has ‘a problem w/xtianity’. Tobin is a former fundy-turned-atheist.
There seems to be a lot of that going around these days, hmmmm?
fuck it call me an idiot I dont care but what is the council of nicea
“Nope. All of’em were wrong.”
“Prove it.”
The real thesis should be:
“All of’em, and only’em, were right.”
“Prove it.”
Gh, prove that the Koran is wrong. Prove that Hinduism is wrong. Prove that Herakles did not kill the Hydra.
There is no evidence either that the apostles approved anything. That would be difficult since the first canonical gospel Mark was written no earlier than 70 AD and the others probably sometime after 100 AD. Not many apostles around then. Peter, if he ever existed, was supposed to have been martyred by Nero in about 64 AD.
The first Council of Nicaea was called by the dictator Constantine–probably the first stalinist. It assembled only 318 of about 1800 “bishops”. These 318 invented the “Trinity”.
So the big loser was Arius who was declared a heretic. Anthanasius was declared the winner, sort of like a theological boxing match.
But times changed quickly, and Constantine changed sides and rehabilitated Arius and exiled Anthanasius. Then the Anthanasiens probably poisoned Arius. It was all very byzantine.
Just to be on the safe side, the “true” christians then went about trying to destroy all of Arius’s works, largely succeeding.
Gee, things sure haven’t changed much over 2000 years.
Then there were various other councils up to the second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD. So, it took about 462 years to come up with the true story.
udonman:
It’s also known as the Nicene Council. Emperor Constantine organized in the 4th CE when xtianity became a political force in the Roman empire. It was a standardization committee.
I find it ironic that Constantine died an Arianist on his deathbed.
Goose:
I am not selling anything, and it would be quite impossible also since you’ve already made up your mind that its false .
Actually i was referring to Pauls mention of his visit in Jerusalem&meeting with the apostles and the citing of the creed he learned from them. Which is of very early origin and a “short form” of the gospels. He does not recite any other gnostic gospel.
Which would mean that the message of the gospels we have today was spreading even during the time that the people mentioned in them were still alive. If its bogus it wouldn’t have survived. Kind of difficult to pull something like that off.
The whole history is totally silent… no one denies that the grave was empty.
To paraphrase Lee Strobel:
There exists two mutually exclusive stories about Hannibal crossing the alps to attack the romans. Yet no one today denies that he crossed the alps.
Is it possible to be as objective when it comes to Jesus?
Hmm… where did i read about the great apostasy?
Bernarda
I can’t. But i believe Jesus when he says He is the only way. Therefore everything else must be false.
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Invent something that was already mentioned in the gospels?
What were his works BTW?
The “true” story is cited in Pauls letters which is agreed to be of very early origin (you will probably disagree). It contains the doctrines we have today.
Sure people have been fighting. I imagine that has more to do with power hunger than the Truth (subjective opinion)
Reluctant
My point being the point of why we discuss this. Evidence suggests that original message that the church was built upon is the same as we have today. & that gnosticism came later.
Nah. Hinduism doesn’t make any claims comparable to the gospels.
which would eventually boil down to historical accuracy of the events described in the gospels right?
If they are historically accurate is it then relevant to discuss if John wrote the gospel of John or not?
I have a theory:
You presuppose that miracles can’t happen, right?
If you, by your standards, know that miracles can’t happen (which would require evidence) then this is a totally pointless discussion.
Is it possible that you started with the assumption that no one rises from the dead or that God doesn’t exist. And then worked your way through it?
Goose:
& yet you try anyways.
& your point being…?
HAHAHAHAHA! You could say the same about hinduism.
Really? I thought we were discussing the historical legitimacy of the apostles.
Hannibal didn’t rise from the grave, or levitate the elephants across the alps.
You tell me. That’s how I came to my conclusions.
From the madness of Revelation, I would assume.
“Lacks religion”… what does that mean in practice?
I am starting to think that the word religion can be used for anything soon.
Excuse me if i smile.
“Hard evidence” hehehe
I’d certainly consider hard evidence but the stuff that’s been presented so far is quite soft to say the least.
A gospel written several generations after the events isn’t going to change that.
thanks ra its funny i never could cared less what the bible said or any of its bull I guess growing up atheist and only seeing the blind rituals of faith and nobody asking why they do it i knew it wasn’t for me but since Ive been coming to this blog Ive learned more about xtianity and the bible then in 25 years i find it ironic to the fact that i the one who grew up atheist knows more then some of the people around me that are xtian
off topic is there any place I can go besides the dark recesses of my mind to escape religion ah screw it Iam going to meditate
About Arius, “What were his works BTW?”
Even a numbskull could do little research of his own and find that information. But christians are not very curious people. Well, curious in one sense.
“What were his works BTW?”
“Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus:
1. that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
2. that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
3. that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was a “time” [although Arius refused to use words meaning time, such as cronos or aion] when He did not exist.”
“Reconstructing the life and teachings of Arius can be problematic and controversial. Most of Arius’ writings were destroyed by his Nicene opponents; only his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, and his letter to Eusibius, remain. Our primary record of his teaching is found in writings of those who opposed him and denounced him as a heretic – sources which are obviously far from dispassionate. Yet these, as the only surviving references to him, are all the scholars have.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius
Bernarda
I really appreciate the tone in your posts…
Now, Arius lived long after the events concerning Jesus.
It would be interesting to know what eh based his theology upon. Doesn’t really say.
Anyway let’s consider his more recent theories in relation to the creed of the earliest church.
Why do you think Arius’ creed is more probable?
“The “true” story is cited in Pauls letters ” From Paul who knew nothing about the subject. He had a “vision” and years later he had a “revelation”. Sounds a lot like the later Mohammed. He never knew or heard Jesus. Well, that would have been difficult anyway since the biblical Jesus never existed. All he went on was hearsay.
“The New Testament does not use the word “Τριάς” (Trinity), but only speaks of God (often called “the Father”), of Jesus Christ (often called “the Son”), and of the Holy Spirit, and of the relationships between them. The word “Trinity” began to be applied to them only in the course of later theological reflection.
The earliest Christians were noted for their insistence on the existence of one true God, in contrast to the polytheism of the prevailing culture. While maintaining strict monotheism, they believed also that the man Jesus Christ was at the same time something more than a man”
The Trinity:
“Since the 4th Century AD, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as “One God in Three Persons,” all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal “persons” or “hypostases,” share a single Divine essence, being, or nature.”
GooseHenry, your words imply that perhaps you think you’re conversing with fools here. I assure you this is one of the most intelligent forums on the net (maybe the quantum physics guys and gals would be competition?) With the exception of udonman, who had the fortunate experience of being raised with fact instead of fiction, I infer that we are a group who have researched the issue of religion tirelessly. I knew that god was bunk when I was five years old, yet I spent the next 36 years of my life trying to de-bunk my wisdom of innocence. It wasn’t until I logged on to American Athiests that I realized I wasn’t the only one to see through the facade. In the meantime I have read and reread the bible countless times. I attended a Lutheran-based college and studied the “Good Book” under subjective and objective instructers. I studied the philosphy of religion from historical figures such as Hegel and even Kierkegaard. I have put countless hours of thought and research into my conclusions, and they are thus–there are no gods or goddesses that rule over us. How xtians are oblivious to this does amaze me so, until I learned from the AA website that only 10% of xtians read the bible. 10%!!! See? There’s a scientific explanation for damn near everything!