Here's my hypothesis. You know how Christians say that you must not love anything or anyone more than you love God? Well, here's the thing. God is everywhere, and all the world is God's creation. God underlies all things. Then there's also the theory that God is love.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I think that all love, all unselfish, true love, is love for God. When you love your companion, your friend, your hobby, your mentor, you cannot fail to love God, for they are one and the same in the end.

Anyway, what do you think, discuss, and stuff.

No.

If you're a Christian, who follows the word of Jesus, then you should (in theory) love everyone.

Here's my hypothesis. You know how Christians say that you must not love anything or anyone more than you love God? Well, here's the thing. God is everywhere, and all the world is God's creation. God underlies all things. Then there's also the theory that God is love.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I think that all love, all unselfish, true love, is love for God. When you love your companion, your friend, your hobby, your mentor, you cannot fail to love God, for they are one and the same in the end.

Anyway, what do you think, discuss, and stuff.

Good post.

Good idea. I suppose if you accept all of what you say in your original post, then that is the logical conclusion. It just comes down to whether you believe those things about the characteristics of god and love. Its an interesting logical conclusion though.

I love to sodomize my girlfriend. I seriously love to. Are you suggesting I ass fuck my un-wed girlfriend out of love to God?

Here's my hypothesis. You know how Christians say that you must not love anything or anyone more than you love God? Well, here's the thing. God is everywhere, and all the world is God's creation. God underlies all things. Then there's also the theory that God is love.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I think that all love, all unselfish, true love, is love for God. When you love your companion, your friend, your hobby, your mentor, you cannot fail to love God, for they are one and the same in the end.

Anyway, what do you think, discuss, and stuff.

So you're saying that because God is in all things, when you love something you are also loving God?

God may be IN all things, but loving something isn't necessarily loving God. Just the object that God is inside of. The love is directed and felt toward the OBJECT, not God. In the Old Testament, people used to worship some nice little God's they called "Ba'al". Now God got fucking pissed off at this :mad: yet according to you, God would have no reason to be angry because the people's love of Ba'al indirectly goes to him since God is in all things.

You might then want to come to the conclusion that God literally IS all things, being inseperate from them. I think that pantheism is incompatible with Christianity; there are just too many problems associated with it.

For example, God is everything [pantheism]. In the Bible, God says he hates some things. He hates the very things he perpetuates. God would be riddled with disagreement, anger, hatred, sodomy etc. and wouldn't be such a perfect being after all. He'd be breaking his own commandments. The Bible also states that God can never lie. Parts of God WOULD however, lie all the time. On top of that, defining God as 'everything' changes nothing. I could start calling hte sky green and the grass blue, but does it really matter? It's jsut messing around with definitions. In your favour however, some people might believe that on the whole, everything IS perfect and perfection must include an element of constant chaos or striving.

I interpret the passage "God is love" as being metaphorical. Are you really going to limit God to being a petty human emotion instilled in us by natural selection, that has been subsequently idealized by our culture? To me, God is above such things. Transcendent.

Love and hate: They're commitments. Love is the commitment to support and nourish. Hatred is the commitment to tear down and starve. If you think you love someone because thinking about them makes you feel warm inside, you're a fucking idiot. If you think you hate someone because thinking about them pisses you off, you're a fucking idiot. Those emotions are called 'glad' and 'mad'. They are experienced in both commitments, varying by whether you see something as supportive or damaging to the fulfillment of your commitment.

Love and hate: They're commitments. Love is the commitment to support and nourish. Hatred is the commitment to tear down and starve. If you think you love someone because thinking about them makes you feel warm inside, you're a fucking idiot. If you think you hate someone because thinking about them pisses you off, you're a fucking idiot. Those emotions are called 'glad' and 'mad'. They are experienced in both commitments, varying by whether you see something as supportive or damaging to the fulfillment of your commitment.

I define 'love' and 'hate' (broadly speaking) to be feelings rather than attitudes. Although these feelings often guide us toward certain attitudes

ie. if you love someone you will tend not to want to hurt them. if you hate someone you will be predisposed to an attitude of wanting to hurt them

However, it is possible to go against these feelings of hate and make a commitment to love your enemies - much like Jesus.

Alternately, it is possible to go against your feelings of love toward somoene and make a commitment ot intentionally hurt them - though I don't see why anyone would do this.

Both love and hate serve their evolutionary purposes. Unlike a lot of people, I don't idealize love as some sort of ultimate value. Evolutionary psychology FTW

Some people want to see God with their eyes as they see a cow, and to love Him as they love their cow-for the milk and cheese and profit it brings them. This is how it is with people who love God for the sake of outward wealth or inward comfort. They do not rightly love God, when they love Him for their own advantage. Indeed, I tell you the truth, any object you have in your mind, however good, will be a barrier between you and the inmost Truth.

Eckhart


I will have nothing to do with a love which would be for or in God. This is a love which pure love cannot abide; for pure love is God Himself

St. Catherine of Genoa



The second distinguishing mark of charity is that, unlike the lower forms of love, it is not an emotion. It begins as an act of the will and is consummated as a purely spiritual awareness, a unitive love-knowledge of the essence of its object.


Aldous Huxley




I once asked the Bishop of Geneva what one must do to attain perfection. "You must love God with all your heart," he answered, "and your neighbour as yourself."

"I did not ask wherin perfection lies,"I rejoined, "but how to attain it."

"Charity," he said again, "that is both the means and the end, the only way by which we can reach that perfection which is, after all, but Charity itself.... Just as the soul is the life of the body, so charity is the life of the soul."

"I know all that," I said. "But I want to know how one is to love God with all one's heart and one's neghbour as oneself."

But again he answered, "We must love God with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves."

"I am no further than I was," I replied. "Tell me how to acquire such love."

"The best way, the shortest and easiest way of loving God with all one's heart is to love him wholly and heartily!"

He would give no other answer. At last, however, the Bishop said, "There are many besides you who want me to tell them of methods and systems and secret ways of becoming perfect, and I can only tell them that the sole secret is a hearty love of God, and the only way of attaining that love is by loving. You learn to speak by speaking, to study by studying, to run by running, to work by working; and just so you learn to love God and man by loving. All those who think to learn in any other way deceive themselves. If you want to love God, go on loving Him more and more. Begin as a mere apprentice, and the very power of love will lead you on to become a master in the art. Those who have made the most progress will continually press on, never believing themselves to have reached their end; for charity should go on increasing until we draw our last breath."

Jean Pierre Camus


[Perennial Philosophy] (http://www.amazon.com/Perennial-Philosophy-Classics/dp/006057058X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203398906&sr=8-1)

Love is love. Why call it God?

Godless people aren't incapable of exhibiting love. Loveless people can still believe in a God.

One can exist without the other.

Godless people aren't incapable of exhibiting love.

One exists, the other doesn't.

One exists, the other doesn't.

How do you figure that?

I'm really starting to get pissed of with the internet eating my posts :mad:

I love to sodomize my girlfriend. I seriously love to. Are you suggesting I ass fuck my un-wed girlfriend out of love to God?

Love and physical pleasure are not the same thing. Physical pleasure cannot be the same as Love, if it were we could say that rape was love, we could say that someone who enjoys fighting people is a man of Love; suddenyl we would be placing the most selfless and kindest people in the world into the same ranks as murderers and rapists.

Either all physical pleasure is an expression of Love , or love and physical pleasure are seperate. I suppose. I may be just exagerating.

Just because you've came, doesn't mean you're in love.

How do you figure that?

Let us not use the word God, for there are too many misconceptions people have constructed around that word, and I know you’ve had a bad experience with “unenlightened gurus”. Let us use the word universe (http://www.reference.com/search?q=universe), everything that exists anywhere, the totality of matter and energy in existence, an aggregation of physical and metaphysical forces. Unus (one), versum (something turned, rotated, changed) meaning "everything rolled into one, everything combined into one".

Surely you do not believe you are outside of the Universe? Universeless, Detached from the one-whorling (entity)?

When you say you are Godless you do not mean Universeless, you mean that you are away from the God of society, but you do not mean that you are away from the piece of the oneness that is within yourself?

Agreed, the word "love" has zillions of denotations and connotations--one may "love" God, one's country, one's spouse, as well as various and sundry forms of physical pleasure.

The Greeks have three words that more or less translate to love-- eros, agape, and caritas, which is a tad more precise.

For a good description of the various sorts of love, see

http://www.xanga.com/kaioaty

(the entry dated Sept 19, 2007)

Let us not use the word God, for there are too many misconceptions people have constructed around that word, and I know you’ve had a bad experience with “unenlightened gurus”. Let us use the word universe (http://www.reference.com/search?q=universe), everything that exists anywhere, the totality of matter and energy in existence, an of aggregation physical and metaphysical forces. Unus (one), versum (something turned, rotated, changed) meaning "everything rolled into one, everything combined into one".

Great! I like that idea. Except it's going to get tricky when referring to differing ideas of Gods through different cultures and religious denominations. Though I see how swapping out God with Universe makes it seem as though no one could deny the "oneness" of it all. It's safe to say we all reside within the same Universe, and we are connected in that way, as one. But you're going to have to sway billions of others into conceptualizing it in that manner. Good luck with that.

Surely you do not believe you are outside of the Universe? Universeless, Detached from the one-whorling (entity)?

Clearly, I'm not outside of the Universe.

When you say you are Godless you do not mean Universeless, you mean that you are away from the God of society, but you do not mean that you are away from the piece of the oneness that is within yourself?

I think you know what I was implying by Godless. :)

Here's the main problem - how have you come to associate the Universe with Love? There's love. And there's the Universe. We're right back to square one.

^this whole issue gets really tricksy, since people have different conceptions of God, and different conceptions of love.

Saying "God is love" (an idea I subscribe to) immediately raises the questions "what kind of God?" and "what kind of love?"

For instance, people who think that God is limited to the sort of petty deity portrayed in the Bible will have a lot of trouble grokking the conception of God shared by the Sufi, the Christian mystics, and myself, among many others.

So many Gods, so many different conceptions. So many translations of it. So many ideas, beliefs, and doctrines. And everyone firmly believes that theirs is the way to go.

Imagine an adult thrust into today's world without having any past exposure to the concept of God. Suppose this adult heard about the God concept, and began to look in earnest for it, thinking that he might be missing something that all these other people have discovered. With hundreds of different God concepts, spiritual beliefs, and practices - all of which claim to be the only TRUE understanding of God ...

What utter confusion! How apparent it should be to this person that God exists as a figment of our imaginations, our wanton desire to be lorded over and "delivered" from what we consider immoral. How obvious it would be that while Love was truly a universal concept that we all shared similar understanding of, the concept of God was not nearly as agreed upon. Not to mention completely unnecessary!

He could always latch onto the God concept that worked best within his lifestyle, but would that be seeking the TRUE nature of God, or just settling with whatever suited his personal needs the best? Would it be intellectually honest of him to just adhere to the one that suited his lifestyle best, while he dismissed the others? How would he ever KNOW that he was getting the best God-concept-experience he could, with all these contradictory examples of God out there running parallel to what HE imagined God to be?

The one thing this person could count on was that even if he didn't latch onto a God concept, he could still experience love, compassion and empathy for others. Not subscribing to a God would not prevent him from living a life full of love, happiness and goodwill towards others.

I love the Universe. I love other human beings. I love to be loved, and to love back. Love is real. God is not real. There's no sense in using God as a universal-catch-all umbrella that encompasses the source of love, not when it's apparent that the capacity for giving/receiving love exists within each and every one of us.

If there truly is a way for us to find a universally agreed-upon disposition that would maximize happiness, enrich the life experience and promote peace - it doesn't have to have the God concept incorporated into it in order for it to happen. It would seem as though the ultimate mark of progress for mankind achieving such a thing would be to forgo the God concept in it's entirety, and exercise the ability we all have in us to promote peace, love and goodwill towards one another on our own accord.

I'll comment on your new post later, but for now...

Here's the main problem - how have you come to associate the Universe with Love? There's love. And there's the Universe. We're right back to square one.

Love. Not the love that our 3rd density experience has led us to understand, "I love you because..."
But unconditional love. You love regardless of their actions or beliefs.
This is the closest thing that can be stated as the ultimate truth, Unconditional Love, Universal Love.

You may want to re-read the quotes I posted.

This Universal Love transcends our 3rd density symbols and conceptions, it is past the ego, it is of the 4th density and cannot be told to an entity, it must be experienced. The power of unconditional love is within All.

What utter confusion! How apparent it should be to this person that God exists as a figment of our imaginations, our wanton desire to be lorded over and "delivered" from what we consider immoral. How obvious it would be that while Love was truly a universal concept that we all shared similar understanding of, the concept of God was not nearly as agreed upon. Not to mention completely unnecessary!


Hmm... Maybe instead of calling it God, we should call it Love. But we All must have an understanding of what love is in it's highest vibration, we wouldn't want the idea of love to be corrupted like the idea of God has been.

Unconditional, Universal Love, Yo.

I just don't see how one would have to subscribe to the notion of all these density levels and transcendental consciousness goals in order to realize the full potential they have inside them of experiencing unconditional, universal love. It just doesn't seem like trances, tripping and astrology have much impact on what's already a given, what we're already fully capable of in our current state of being. I mean, okay - if it makes you more of a cool dude in a loose mood, then sure, why not? But it's not necessary.

You seek to separate your unconditional love from your ego, but I firmly believe that unconditional love starts with having the capacity to love yourself unconditionally first. Unconditional love shouldn't require a sense of piety or sacrament. It's love for the sake of love, and like you said - regardless of anything. Since you can inarguably love someone yet not like them (bet we've all experienced that at some level), that is quite the height of "unconditional", isn't it? Extending that to every being in the Universe doesn't sound like such a chore, after all!

I'm not quite sure what you meant by "cannot be told to another entity, only experienced". Why do you think it can't be related? If it's a to-each-his-own kinda deal, then it seems like we'd all be neglecting to cease the opportunity to share it with one another. A universal blanket of love. Can you dig it?

But again, I'm not quite sure what you meant by "cannot be told to another entity, only experienced". :confused:

Unconditional, Universal Love, Yo.

I just don't see how one would have to subscribe to the notion of all these density levels and transcendental consciousness goals in order to realize the full potential they have inside them of experiencing unconditional, universal love. It just doesn't seem like trances, tripping and astrology have much impact on what's already a given, what we're already fully capable of in our current state of being. I mean, okay - if it makes you more of a cool dude in a loose mood, then sure, why not? But it's not necessary.


No it's not necessary.
These density levels I speak of are a way of looking at reality that I've learned about and meditated/explored to that have worked for me. They are tools that help you reach different areas of understanding, but they are not necessary. All these different tools and maps we have are just that, tools and maps, the only way to truly understand the mountain is to climb it. We have everything within ourselves to do that right now.


You seek to separate your unconditional love from your ego, but I firmly believe that unconditional love starts with having the capacity to love yourself unconditionally first. Unconditional love shouldn't require a sense of piety or sacrament. It's love for the sake of love, and like you said - regardless of anything.
Unconditional love of self is the foundation. Once the foundation is established you can then spread this love into everything anywhere. You must learn to love yourself not because of certain traits that you like, that is still part of your ego, but like you said, "It's love for the sake of love."

This is where we get into the idea of your higher/innerself. What it is that you really are past the illusion of life and death, past your emotions, past your naive preconceptions of how you think the universe is. This level is beyond words and maps, they can only guide (astrology helps in understanding this.) You can bond with your highest Will by connecting with the energy which makes you in this life. But if you Will you can go even farther, you reach a level that connects with the energies that make up all of your lives that You have experienced throughout all of eternity.
*sigh*
I don't really expect you to understand this but every moment of time and space has a unique energy attached to it in that single point of creation, and when you come into this world you have the traits of that moment of creation. You carry those traits with you in every choice, every action, every thought, every moment of your existence. That is what is meant by You being a piece of God, a piece of the Oneness, a piece of Creation. From the understanding and unconditional love of the energies that make You, You learn of the laws of the Cosmos, You become the master of Your reality.

Sorry for getting all metaphysical and esoteric on you, just ignore it if you want.



Since you can inarguably love someone yet not like them (bet we've all experienced that at some level), that is quite the height of "unconditional", isn't it? Extending that to every being in the Universe doesn't sound like such a chore, after all!Imagine what it would be like if every spark of consciousness on this planet extended their unconditional love into the field.


I'm not quite sure what you meant by "cannot be told to another entity, only experienced". Why do you think it can't be related? If it's a to-each-his-own kinda deal, then it seems like we'd all be neglecting to cease the opportunity to share it with one another. A universal blanket of love. Can you dig it?

But again, I'm not quite sure what you meant by "cannot be told to another entity, only experienced". :confused:You can draw a map of the mountain but ultimately, You must climb it to grasp the true meaning.

How do you figure that?

Everyone lives with God. That we call it different names and understand it differently means nothing at all. Choosing to argue over these differences does mean something: the arguer is angry. I call 'it' God, you may just call it 'it', or 'reality', or 'life on life's terms', and so on...but the truth of the matter is that it does indeed exist the same for both of us in experience, yet differently in tongue and understanding. That is to say that I do indeed have love for both it and you; thus I don't sit trying to argue with you over the names we call it, or whether we agree on what to call it, or how we understand it.

I will as much try to help you return to the enjoyment of being as I will try to help a fellow Christian return to Christ, for they are one in the same in experience, yet different in tongue and understanding.

When I asked Christ into my heart in my understanding, I was asking to find joy in life again within your understanding. When it happened, this is what is salvation in my tongue, and possibly the same in yours. I have a different body than you, but we are both of the same breathe, the same life, the same experience. We both know suffering, joy, pain, and so on. We both experience, yet may describe our experience in different terms. It is understanding the limitations of the tongue that allows me to love your attribute that's understood as 'atheism' as much as my own attribute that I understand as 'spiritual theism'. You serve what I call God as much as I serve what you call godless. We serve the same though if your life is indeed that of smiles, laughters, tears, pains, pleasures, and more. You may not even see it as 'serving' though, you may call it 'enjoying', or something else entirely.

I like what Dame Julian of Norwich had to say on the subject. She once asked God why "he" created the world. The reply:

You want to know your lord's meaning in what I have done? Know it well, love was his meaning. Who reveals it to you? Love. What did he reveal to you? Love. Why does he reveal it to you. For love.

For more info on DJ, see

http://www.irondequoitcatholic.org/index.php/Bl/JulianOfNorwich

Love and physical pleasure are not the same thing. Physical pleasure cannot be the same as Love, if it were we could say that rape was love, we could say that someone who enjoys fighting people is a man of Love; suddenyl we would be placing the most selfless and kindest people in the world into the same ranks as murderers and rapists.

Either all physical pleasure is an expression of Love , or love and physical pleasure are seperate. I suppose. I may be just exagerating..

Love and hate are NOT, I repeat, are NOT objective.

Anyone would be a fool to argue otherwise.

All or nothing, huh? Either all physical pleasure is an expression of love, or they are separate? Again, NOT OBJECTIVE.

SUBJECTIVE.

Anyone would be a fool to argue otherwise.

Love is completely subjective. If I say I love to sodomize my girlfriend, who the fuck are you to say I don't? It is like you saying, I love to paint, and me telling you "You don't".

You cannot tell people who, what and how they should or do love anything. Your opinions, or anyone's opinions are COMPLETELY irrelavent when it comes to this.

Just because you've came, doesn't mean you're in love.

I am not a 16 year old who just lost his virginity. I am 27 years old and experienced enough to completely know this.

Love and hate are NOT, I repeat, are NOT objective.

Anyone would be a fool to argue otherwise.

All or nothing, huh? Either all physical pleasure is an expression of love, or they are separate? Again, NOT OBJECTIVE.

SUBJECTIVE.

Anyone would be a fool to argue otherwise.

Love is completely subjective. If I say I love to sodomize my girlfriend, who the fuck are you to say I don't? It is like you saying, I love to paint, and me telling you "You don't".

You cannot tell people who, what and how they should or do love anything. Your opinions, or anyone's opinions are COMPLETELY irrelavent when it comes to this.


My argument is more with the definition of love. I'm not saying that love is some objective magic force.

Would you agree with me that it is possible for there to be a love influenced by gain and a love that is not influenced by gain? By this I mean that someone will say that they love something because it causes them to experience pleasure and enjoyment, and another will love out of a feeling of duty. Another way you could say this is that one type of love in involuntary and the other voluntary.

For example, you example of love of sodomising your girlfriend is involuntary love; you have not chosen to love sodomy, it is a consequence of the pleasure involved. Love of masturbation, drugs, certain people, certain places many of these things are involuntary love; you only love them becase of the pleasure you recieve, if sodomising your GF caused intense and violent pain, would you still love it?

Voluntary love is something differant, it is not caused by pleasure, it must be a decision that is made by the individual with no expectation of anything in return. When love is a choice it is voluntary love.

My point is that involunary love doesn't benefit anyone but the individual, and can be detrimental to others. Voluntary love has it's aim in benefitting others, it is something that encourages more love.

And going with the thread the implication is that more love is better, and there is more love in helping others than simply gratifying the self.



I am not a 16 year old who just lost his virginity. I am 27 years old and experienced enough to completely know this.

It wasn't a dig at you, so much as trying to show that pleasure is not love of anything other than the pleasure.

The value you have assigned to your catagories of love, is subjective. It is a matter of opinion. What isn't is your belief that some love yields no rewards.

Let's talk about something a bit more objective. There is no type of love that does not yield intristic rewards. You can give your life savings to benefit starving children in Africa and you will receive intristic rewards. You might feel prideful or a bit holier than thou. You might experience emotional rewards, feeling satisfied with yourself, your life and your place in the world.

The point is YOU DO receive a reward, for every type of love you or anyone else wish to create Whether it is 10 seconds of physical bliss, or a lifetime of emotional rewards watching your well loved children experience the joys of life. Whether it is dying a matyr's death, and experiencing the satisfaction of knowing you gave everything you could for what you believed in, or feeling joyful at the face of your girlfriend when you ask her to marry you (essentially saying "You satisfy my emotional needs and I think you will for the rest of my life, what do you think?").

So you can catagorize love and assign your own personal subjective values on which is better and why, and you would be just as right as anyone else who comes along and assigns there own subjective values to love. That is what is great about opinion.

Get over yourself and realize that you are IN FACT putting forth pure opinion.

I love to sodomize my girlfriend. I seriously love to. Are you suggesting I ass fuck my un-wed girlfriend out of love to God?

Assuming this is an expression of pure love, why not?

No.

this.

what if you dont believe in "god"? then how are you to "love" said entity?

prove to me there is a god and i may accept your hypothesis.

this.

what if you dont believe in "god"? then how are you to "love" said entity?

prove to me there is a god and i may accept your hypothesis.

First of all, God is not an "entity"--God is the Universe--or rather, the field of energy and information which makes the physical universe possible, which underlies and sustains it. This is something that many people, including mystic Christians, Sufi Muslims, and a flock of New Age types agree on.

And as far as I am concerned, the mere fact of my existence is sufficient proof that there is a God.

And as far as I am concerned, the mere fact of my existence is sufficient proof that there is a God.

The fact of your existence is ONLY sufficient enough to prove that you exist and nothing more.

The value you have assigned to your catagories of love, is subjective. It is a matter of opinion. What isn't is your belief that some love yields no rewards.

Let's talk about something a bit more objective. There is no type of love that does not yield intristic rewards. You can give your life savings to benefit starving children in Africa and you will receive intristic rewards. You might feel prideful or a bit holier than thou. You might experience emotional rewards, feeling satisfied with yourself, your life and your place in the world.

The point is YOU DO receive a reward, for every type of love you or anyone else wish to create Whether it is 10 seconds of physical bliss, or a lifetime of emotional rewards watching your well loved children experience the joys of life. Whether it is dying a matyr's death, and experiencing the satisfaction of knowing you gave everything you could for what you believed in, or feeling joyful at the face of your girlfriend when you ask her to marry you (essentially saying "You satisfy my emotional needs and I think you will for the rest of my life, what do you think?").

So you can catagorize love and assign your own personal subjective values on which is better and why, and you would be just as right as anyone else who comes along and assigns there own subjective values to love. That is what is great about opinion.

Get over yourself and realize that you are IN FACT putting forth pure opinion.


Fair enough.

But let';s go with what you are saying: Every type of love has a reward.

I take it then that a reward, or benefit resulting from the the act of loving someone or soemthing in some way is good in this circumstance.
I take it that more benefit is good and less benefit, or harm, is bad.
I take it that those people who love in a way that aids others, bring about more benefit than, say, your act of fucking your GF in the ass.

So: benefit is good.
The greater the benefit the better.
loving acts that aid others selflessly promote greater benefit.
Acts that please only the self have less benfit.
Loving acts that aid others are better.

I can't give much else than opinion I'm afraid.