If there's a god, why is there evil?

"Maybe Evil has a part to play in the world. Without evil, there would be no Goodness. " I think you are close. Evil may be the baptism by fire. Fire is evil, it burns, but the end result is more pure.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Wow! Some crazy arguments have gone down. With hostility even! I've been rereading a bunch of the books I have for the past week or so and have been really busy otherwise, so I haven't been able to post lately. Once I get all my information compiled, I'll write up an argument for the Bible's trustworthiness, and reliability. Well, mainly the New Testament, since that is the main focus for the claims of Christianity. I will either post it here, or start a totally new thread with it so all who visit this website may see it and come to their own conclusions.

I read the last two posts from OKCITYKID and I have some gripes if you don't mind taking some criticism.

He said:

"2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Timothy does not call it the word of God."
For one thing, I don't know if you know this or not, but this letter was written by Paul, TO Timothy. (see 1:1-2) And, when you read anywhere in the New Testament where they use the word "scripture", they are normally referring to the Old Testament.

"The word of God is a phrase coined by Jesus, if you have any intelligence at all, you know he was not talking about the bible."
Well, I don't know if this phrase originated from Jesus, I might need some proof of that. But, it is mentioned elsewhere. Check out Hebrews 4:12 and compare to Proverbs 30:5. So the phrase has been around before Jesus' time on earth.

"The bible is a (SMALL) collection of books..."
Sixty-six books to be exact. Some are letters, poetry, testamonies, and annuls of Israel's history.

"... from a (LIBRARY) of books,"
What library would that be? And what were these books?

" most of which had been destroyed"
Where, when, and by whom were they destroyed?

"and whatever else was left, a group of people got together and decided (this is the word of God/this is not the word of God). Throwing out hundreds of books."
What group of people? And what made them choose the books that we have in our canon? Can you site where you are getting your information?

"And who are they that we to this day believe them?"
Believe me when I say this, I do not mean to be rude, but these are the arguments we get, (arguments that go nowhere) when sources or facts are not sited. It seems that people over the ages have taken the phrase "the word of God" and have applied it to the Bible. Realise that this phrase is a human constructed idea. Some think when Christians use this phrase, that we are speaking literally. It's just another term in the Christianese language that we use to refer to the Bible sometimes. This in-turn gets misunderstood by non-Christians and society. In truth, it's our fault it gets misunderstood since we don't always speak clearly and straightforward.

"What is now called the bible, considered by many (The Word of God), has brought on bitter debates that cannot be won."
Some have died, went to prison, been shunned by loved ones, etc."
Somewhat true. Debates are only considered won, if the proponent of a view convinces his opponent. Otherwise, there are no winners.

"In the bible you will find hundreds of contradictions that people will fight over."
Point some out. Most so-called contradictions can be rectified. People that don't trust the Bible are too eager to say it is full of contradictions, don't normally have proof of any contradictions, and aren't willing to listen when an explanation is given for the SO-CALLED contradiction.

" Maybe if we was to realize that it is not the word of God, we would stop fighting."
The Bible is a record. After reading its contents, it becomes obvious that it was written over a long period of time, by many different authors. It contains the words spoken BY God written by His people. So, you are partly right.

"In the bible there are literally hundreds of messages about god and people. In there are stories about real life in a religious context without judgment or condemnation that Hollywood could never reproduce. But I'm here to tell you its just PAPER."
Why is it unreliable? Can you make such claims with sitations from trustworthy sources? That is if it's just paper!

"If the bible is the word of God, why has it ended? Did God stop talking to us?"
To be short and to the point, the OT tells of Israel making sacrifices at God's temple to atone for their sins. These were made by the priest and presented behind a curtain in the inner sanctuary in the presence of God. Israel kept on sinning, and sacrifice after sacrifice kept having to be made. The prophets told of Jesus' coming. Then God sent Jesus as a sacrifice. Jesus was crucified. The curtain the priests had to go behind to present the sacrifices to God was torn in two when Jesus gave up his spirit. (Matthew 27: 51) This was sign of the breaking of the old covenant (meaning that God needed no more sacrifices) and the starting of a new one (faith in Christ for salvation, and Jesus blood as atonement for our sins). When Jesus appeared to the disciples after his crucifixion, he gave them commands to make disciples, baptize and teach.(Matthew 28: 19-20) Since this has been recorded in each of the four gospels, the letters of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament; and since we have teachings and commands from Jesus; we as Christians know how we are supposed to live our lives. God doesn't need to speak with us face to face anymore, since the fight against evil has already been won through his Son. All we have to do is obey Him and believe, and we will see eternal life.

"I'm not going to argue over it."
Not to be a jerk or anything, but by stating these things you have started a debate, so you pretty much are arguing against any view that is not the one you hold.

"The Word of God is within all who believe in God."
This presupposes that there is one true God that is knowable and puts his "word" within us. Check out what those who wrote the Psalms thought about the word of God.(Psalms 119:9-16)

"You will not find it on a piece of paper."
If it wasn't written on paper, or parchment, or papyrus, it can be concluded that we would not know of any "word of God." How would we know that it was in us?

"And if that's where you're looking, you're looking in the wrong place. THE BIBLE JUST SIMPLY HELPS US UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ALREADY INSIDE US."
Now you're telling me, that the "Word of God" is within us if we believe in Him; That we can't find it on paper (I assume you mean the Bible); yet the Bible helps us understand it? How does that work? If by your reasoning the Bible contains no "Word of God", how can it tell us anything about it?

I would like to quote Romans 3:11, "...there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God." This quote is fitting for our day and age. Many seem to think that their view is the right way, but since so many people have differing views, it would be wrong to say that all are right. In essence, society has become its own god, and nobody follows anyone but themselves. Many say that they can know God, but how can that be true if what you know, is different from what someone else knows?

There can be only one God. We should only believe in Him in one way. The only way is by trying to find Him so we can see Him. Could he be described in the Bible? Can it be tested? It tells us:

"Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."
[  Edited by Strongclad at   ]

Good word, Strong.

Why is there Evil and suffering In the World?
The Question implies that if a good god exsists, Then Evil shouldnt' because god being all powerful should stop it.

We need to ask and answer two questions first, What is Evil? It is that which is against god/ It is anything morally bad or wrong.It is Injurious,Depraved, Wicked, Some acceptable examples might be murder,rape,stealing,lying, and Cheating.second, If we want god to stop evil do we want him to stop all evil or just some of it?

"I'm afraid of the dark,and suspicious of the light"

I think you are right Shade. These are the major questions we are looking for answers to. But I think that your comments here assume that we already know who God is, when that is definitely not true. Since there are those of us here that have conflicting viewpoints on who God is and what the beliefs in Him should consist of, we must first find out who is right.

You said:

"Why is there Evil and suffering In the World?
The Question implies that if a good god exsists, Then Evil shouldnt' because god being all powerful should stop it."
This statement that you've made implies that we know that God is good and that He should stop evil. But, we must know who God is in fact, to know that He is good in fact...

"We need to ask and answer two questions first, What is Evil? It is that which is against god/ It is anything morally bad or wrong.It is Injurious,Depraved, Wicked, Some acceptable examples might be murder,rape,stealing,lying, and Cheating."
...and to know these things are evil, we must know that God dislikes them and sees them as evil.

"second, If we want god to stop evil do we want him to stop all evil or just some of it?"
If WE want God to stop evil? See, this question shows how much some really think they know about God. I say this because we act as if we are right and God is wrong. In our selfish ways, WE want God to stop the evil that WE commit. If we didn't want things in life to be evil, or if we really wanted to stop evil, why don't we just do it ourselves and quit being evil? I would also like to add, if God IS all powerful, all knowing, all good, or whatever, don't you think He is capable of dealing with this in His own way? If He is our Creator, and if this is all going according to His plan, and I'm just stating this as an assumption (although being a Christian, I do believe it is), don't you think that it will work itself out according to His will? Who are we to say that He should deal with humankind and its evilness according to our opinions? How can we think that, when we aren't even powerful or smart enough to take care of the matter ourselves?

See, I think you are right on some points, but on your other points we must know more about God to define terms such as what is "EVIL." And especially what is evil in His sight.

We must define who God is FIRST, and make no assumption on what WE might think is evil. That is, if those of us here believe in God. And for the athiests here, we must show why our God is real, because obviously, they believe that He isn't.

"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."

You're right - it was a letter to Timothy written by Paul. My mistake. So the new testament is not the word of God but the old testament is, is that what you are saying? I can almost agree with you. Certainly a letter that Paul writes to Timothy could not be the word of God.

For the rest, you'll just have to go to the library.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Strongclad - I did it - I read your post.

I like your definition of the word of God - I'll let you keep it.

But you're still going to have to go to the library - Your post tired me out. I'm taking a break.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

"why don't we just do it ourselves and quit being evil?"
Mainly out of practicality and the fact our in built sense of morals has a LOT of trouble applying itself to the world today.

"if God IS all powerful, all knowing, all good, or whatever, don't you think He is capable of dealing with this in His own way? If He is our Creator, and if this is all going according to His plan,"
Yes you've pretty much nailed it. What we perceive as evil are in fact only nescessary for the greater good that God's plan will create.

"We must define who God is FIRST, and make no assumption on what WE might think is evil. That is, if those of us here believe in God. And for the athiests here, we must show why our God is real, because obviously, they believe that He isn't."
I've always defined evil as selfishness. Letting another suffer for your own gain. It is not exactly the biblical defintion though.

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."

OKCITYKID - "So the new testament is not the word of God but the old testament is, is that what you are saying? I can almost agree with you. Certainly a letter that Paul writes to Timothy could not be the word of God."
I'm glad you can kind of understand, or at least a little bit accept my point, because most of what I believe, I try to take from Scripture (the word I use for the whole Bible) without fudging it up. Now to be honest, I don't know if I should call the New Testament the "Word of God" or not. I would assume it is, but I wouldn't want to be caught in the wrong if it wasn't, if you know what I mean. Take this for example:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"16ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
A lot of Christians assume that when Paul says in this letter that "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED" that he is saying that God used the authors of the Old and New Testament, by the Holy Spirit, to write the words we have of the Bible today. Or at least that's how I've understood it. I believe it, just because Paul says so, as I believe he is a trustworthy man. But as to whether I'm right or not, I don't think it really matters as long as you're getting his point about using it for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In my mind, whether or not these specific words came from God, I'm not for sure; but, even if they're not, the ideas and ideals that are written are taken from God and His standards for humankind.

"But you're still going to have to go to the library."
Now maybe I'm just being ignorant, or maybe I missed something, but I just don't get it. What should I go to the Library for?

Crimson_Saint - "our in built sense of morals has a LOT of trouble applying itself to the world today."
Sweet! I'm glad that we both agree that we all have a built in sense of morals. Otherwise, why would we feel the emotion called guilt? When it comes to actually applying our morals to be morally sound in our lives, it is hard. I agree on this too. Though my reasoning behind it might be different than yours. Sin is what the Bible sometimes terms as "the flesh." You know how sometimes in Hollywood, when an actor or a cartoon is in the midst of doing something sinful (or evil) an angel and a devil will show up on his shoulders to try and win him over? I believe it's kind of the same thing that we humans actually go through. It's what some like to term "Spiritual Warfare." You see, as believers and followers of Christ, his death and his resurrection, we are set free from the bondage of sin that would otherwise send us to Hell. We don't have to be slaves to sin anymore since we are saved, but we still have to deal with combating the sinful nature that is still a part of our bodies. This is where choosing to follow God and His standards comes into place. We are gauranteed help in this, and that He will not leave us alone to fight the battle ourselves. The way I think of it, how could we do it otherwise? If you want some scripture reference to this, I'd be glad to offer it up.

"What we perceive as evil are in fact only nescessary for the greater good that God's plan will create."
This is pretty much my belief also, but I still believe that we have free will to do these evil things.

"I've always defined evil as selfishness. Letting another suffer for your own gain. It is not exactly the biblical defintion though."
I believe that selfishness is at the heart of all that evil is. But are you saying that you don't think selfishness is the biblical definition for evil? I may not have understood that last part, but I believe that selfishness is a key factor in what evil (or sin) is. If we weren't selfish, we would be kind neighbors to all who were in need. I doubt that there would be greed, hunger, poverty, and all the like.

Nice icon by the way. I still think it's funny how Jesus is portrayed as an american white man in a lot of his paintings. I mean dang!...he is descended from Abraham, a Hebrew. I'd expect a little more color in his skin!

"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."

"SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED" That is a new term I have not heard. Is this a term you made up or is it in one of the newer translations.

My anger was towards someone else who failed to read my post and bluntly tell me I'm wrong.

I tried to explain that "The Ego" in religion is bad and we must give up the ego, (MOST RELIGIONS TEACH THIS) however in the world's people sciences, the ego is considered good but dangerous if not well fed. This is important stuff - arguing about frivolous word meanings is a stupid waste of my time, and I'm not going to waste my time on it.

Concerning canonizing the bible, books being thrown out and other stuff lost - I can send you some information if you're really interested in it - not real important. (or you can go to the library).

"I don't know if I should call the New Testament the "Word of God" or not." I'm sure after you thought about it, you wished you hadn't said that. But it helps me realize your open mindedness which is very important. I'm sure that you believe that the new testament is the word of God according to your interpretation.

We may agree on your interpretation - but I think we will find that we disagree on what we will call the word of God. I'm sure you believe that most if not all of the new testament is the word of God. I do not. That is something we have to figure out on our own. But I will dare to venture out and share what I believe.

Paul calls himself an apostle just for the gentiles. Earlier - Peter discovers that the gentiles should be brought into the fold. An apostle is chosen - its not Paul. There are 12 apostles, not thirteen. There is no proof that Paul was made an apostle accept that he calls himself one and tells everyone else that he is, everybody believes it and it is now the word of God. Why would I challenge what is believed by all?

Paul tells everybody that we are saved by grace. He explains that Jesus died for our sins because we could not follow the law, we are doomed to hell, but by believing in Jesus and his death. Jesus becomes the sacrifice for our missing the mark, we can now be saved. He further explains that the law is now knoll and void. He even gets after certain people for following the law. The law can't save us anymore, only Jesus can. We don't pay no attention to what Jesus did or said while he was on earth, we're only concerned with his death.

Who said that I was condemned for hell just for being born?

I'm not going to loose my concentration on the most important part of the new testament - The Life of Jesus, by hoping that I believe enough in his death to be saved from hell - I've been in that trap and I'm not going back.

Now Paul has established that we're not saved by the law but by grace. If one was to follow just one part of the law, we would be required to follow all of it, etc. We are saved by grace alone, not of our own doing that we may boast. So if you're good you may go to hell, and if you're bad, that's all right, believe that Jesus died for you, you can go to heaven, while those you have stolen from and raped go to hell.

(I could go on - but I'll stop and get to my point)

Paul now turns around and writes a whole bunch of laws. What a hypocrite. A lot of people, even professing Christians cannot agree on the laws he wrote. Anyways, I believe the man is a fraud - even his life proved it. He never did one miracle, was not martered and he himself died of stomach sickness.

Now - you're going to want me to quote scriptures - I'm not going to do it. Everything I said is in the New Testament, you just have to read it to see what I'm saying.

I'm only going to tell you what I believe - I'm not going to prove it to you. We all have to figure things out for ourself.

I don't expect you to agree with me - just respect the fact that I have studied it and this is the conclusion I came up with.

Peace

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

"I believe that selfishness is at the heart of all that evil is. But are you saying that you don't think selfishness is the biblical definition for evil? I may not have understood that last part, but I believe that selfishness is a key factor in what evil (or sin) is."
The Bible does occasionaly condone selfishness, such as slavery as well as insensitivity towards women. The Bible sees homosexuality as evil, yet I have no idea how that could possibly be a selfish act. And if the Bible truly sees selfishness as evil, then the majority of the US people with all its capitalism and anti-communism, does not really understand the bible.

"Sweet! I'm glad that we both agree that we all have a built in sense of morals. Otherwise, why would we feel the emotion called guilt? When it comes to actually applying our morals to be morally sound in our lives, it is hard. I agree on this too."
We will probably disagree on where these morals come from though. If the inbuilt set of morals comes primarily from emotions, then it is not our choice to be moral or not. Because it is certain morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic. In this way we are created with an inbuilt sense of what is moral or not, something beyond our choice, which I find with a Christian God, is highly unfair.

"Nice icon by the way. I still think it's funny how Jesus is portrayed as an american white man in a lot of his paintings. I mean dang!...he is descended from Abraham, a Hebrew. I'd expect a little more color in his skin!"
Yeah, I've always thought it bizarre his colour is always peachy white perfect. This particular icon is in fact GWBush as Christ

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."

HAH!!! GW Bush as Christ! That's great.

I guess you're right telling me that we disagree on where morals came from Crimson_Saint. And this is totally off the subject when it comes to this thread, but I'll state that the way I see it, we can't be just chemicals in motion. I mean, is the theory of evolution even proven empircally yet? I can't believe that the morals we have come from emotions. Is it genetic that our parents have been raising us since birth to be morally sound? How could it be if the choice to raise your kid in the wrong way exists? And how can we be certain that "morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic."? Is it necessary to choose between being moral or immoral?

"Because it is certain morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic. In this way we are created with an inbuilt sense of what is moral or not, something beyond our choice, which I find with a Christian God, is highly unfair."
This doesn't make any sense to me. You take a standpoint that comes from genetics. But, in genetics there cannot be any "unfair." If it's "all-in-the-genes", then we are programmed to react the way we do. In that case, there really is no emotions or morals, just reactions to the stimuli we come in contact with. From your standpoint, we are only robots. And I can't assume that you believe that totally.
Aside from believing in the Christian God, if our sense of morals is beyond our choice genetically, how can it be unfair that we can still choose in any certain social situation to do what is morally right or wrong? Someone could sucker punch me and I could choose not to retaliate even though I felt rage. It doesn't seem logical that we have no way of controlling any part of our beings. How could it be this way?

If my body, which is assumed to be at its most advanced stage (that is if we don't evolve into another higher life form, feh!) in the evolutionary scale, why don't I have control over all of my smallest functioning parts? You are saying instead that my smallest functioning parts actually control me. That doesn't make any sense when you bring in the fact of known emotions and morals. Wouldn't it be better for evolution, if we didn't have morals and emotions? If genetically, our bodies are just trying to keep us alive, it would seem morals just get in the way. I would think that if we didn't have the ability to do anything wrong, our survival rate would be better. Wait a minute! I forgot...everything in evolution just happens by chance! How could something created by chance, get better? How could something created by chance (an amino acid for instance) choose to be something more advanced (an emotional human personality)? Wouldn't it be in its best interest to become something with the ability not to do something morally wrong?

As I said, we cannot just be chemicals in motion. We all know that we have emotions and morals. It is a fact that we can gain knowledge and choose what we want to do with it. If everything were mere chance or genetics, there would be no morals, there would be no choosing. It's not genetic if we can do either or. I am not an advanced version of the terminator.

"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."

"I can't believe that the morals we have come from emotions. Is it genetic that our parents have been raising us since birth to be morally sound? How could it be if the choice to raise your kid in the wrong way exists? And how can we be certain that "morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic."? Is it necessary to choose between being moral or immoral?"
To me, it seems that morals are a combination of culture and emotion. However it was the emotion that prompted the creation of a moral culture and laws.
"Moral emotion" would be a GREAT asset to any species try to build a society. Guilt is possibly the greatest of moral emotions, this emotion helps keep people in check by inflicting mental pain if we feel we were selfish. Anger can be a moral emotion, in the case of theft or murder (in the family) anger would allow a primitive society to more readily punish those who abuse the society.
However unlike human machines these emotions only make us feel bad when we do something, or make us want to hurt something, these are not mechanical reactions.
The reason they cannot be mechanical reactions is because this would make our main asset (intelligence) completely useless. That is where the moral "choice" is apparent. It is when out intelligence must decide between an action which we feel uncomfortable about (stealing for example) or simply following the ways of society.

"If it's "all-in-the-genes", then we are programmed to react the way we do. In that case, there really is no emotions or morals, just reactions to the stimuli we come in contact with. From your standpoint, we are only robots. And I can't assume that you believe that totally."
If anything, emotions are THE most robotic thing about us. They insure we reproduce and take care of our offspring (love), that we don't undermine society too much (guilt), that we punish those who undermine society (anger), that we do not endanger ourselves needlessly (fear), that we do not show we are stupid in front of society (embarassment).

"If my body, which is assumed to be at its most advanced stage (that is if we don't evolve into another higher life form, feh!) in the evolutionary scale, why don't I have control over all of my smallest functioning parts? You are saying instead that my smallest functioning parts actually control me."
There is not really such a thing as "most advanced" in evolutionary terms heh. But actually, no the body often needs to keep the "intelligence" part completely independant from the rest of the body. Because our intelligence, is pretty dumb, in the vast majority of cases we learn by making mistakes. Would it be a good evolutionary decision to let intelligence have control of everything knowing this?

"That doesn't make any sense when you bring in the fact of known emotions and morals. Wouldn't it be better for evolution, if we didn't have morals and emotions? If genetically, our bodies are just trying to keep us alive, it would seem morals just get in the way."
I disagree, lack of morals can allow 1 person to survive, but morals can allow an entire society to function better because of the reasons I have stated.

"How could something created by chance (an amino acid for instance) choose to be something more advanced (an emotional human personality)?"
Because it allows them to become more succesful socially?

" Wouldn't it be in its best interest to become something with the ability not to do something morally wrong? "
Heck no, that would completely put our best asset, intelligence out of the picture. A society completely based on emotions would not take advantage of each other, but they could never be great thinkers and would be incredibly closed-minded, this means that two primitive villages could never cooperate together for lack of trust in this situation. And as we know, the greatest civilizations were those who could cooperate.

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."

If you understand God, then you understand His nature. He is the Holy Spirit who Inspires. Note when Jesus breathed the Spirit upon His apostles; They could speak tongues, their eyes and ears were opened.

Also; Paul was Saul first. The one who persecuted early church christians. He was blinded by the Lord. He converted and preached FOR the Lord.
He was stoned twice and left for dead, jailed many times, and had many toturous accounts he lived through with the AID of the Lord and His angels.
Should he be believed? I would think so.



Now for the why evil exists.
Evil exists at the root of when Satan opened it up, when he was boastful and proud, and desired to be above God.

He was said to have boasted he would rise above the throne of God.
Of course he was dismissed from heaven, and all those who also had too much pride to be subservient to God.

Evil exists with free will, or free will would not exist. Even angels have free will.

Thus Satan led in the first act of evil, and therefore, wishing for revenge, he seeks ruin of all of creation to accompany him in his hell fire misery.

God is love and good, the opposing force is evil and hate.

Be glad you have this time on earth to get through the temptations and have your sins cleansed by God. In the person of Christ. Evil would wish for all to believe it was CREATED by God. For God created the world, and the Garden of eden was pure, but evil manages to infiltrate all places. Satan even tests our beliefs at all times. He practices these deceptions when people are confused, it is evil.

NO God did not create EVIL, He created free will. Take your choice.

"Even though is difficult, I can still dream."

So you say that because of free will, evil developed. You might be right.

God created Saten (but God didn't create Saten evil), saten was prized above the rest but became puffed up with pride and sought to overtake the thrown.

Did God make a mistake or was this a part of the plan? How can God make a mistake if he is perfect, then it must be a part of a plan. I think that is where this is going, or should go.

Personaly, I enterpret it differently. I believe we are Saten. I know the scriptures don't exactly say that, but you can read between the lines and see that. You might ask, why didn't the scriptures just say that. Because if they did, we wouldn't be reading them today, they would have been destroyed by every king that ever came across them. That's what I believe.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."