Sts. Simon and Jude

[LOCO]

Today on the Roman Calendar it is the Feast of Sts. Simon and Jude. I have a great devotion to Jude, and even though he only makes cameo appearances in Scripture, his martyr's fidelity to Our Lord and his friendship with Christ have inspired me for as long as I've known about him. Before I was Baptized, I "discovered" Jude, and I believed that he had been praying for me the whole time I spent in Atheism. Gratefully, I took his name as my Confirmation Saint.

I've found that in the times when I'm in terrible temptation to do one thing or another, asking for Jude's intercession allows me to remain open to Grace, so I can resist temptation and continue to love God.

The prayer in the Breviary today is:

"Father,
you revealed yourelf to us
through the preaching of your apostles Simon and Jude.
By their prayers,
give your Church continued growth
and increase the number of those who believe in You.
Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, you Son,
Who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
Amen."

Happy Feast of Sts. Simon and Jude! Ora pro nobis.

St Jude, cousin of our Lord is also one of my favourites. No doubt when you were an atheist someone was asking St Jude, Patron St of Lost Causes to pray for you.

 

[judechild]

the ball is is in your court to prove they are not moving about as spiritual beings.

No, my teacher, the ball is certainly not in my court, because your position is now that immaterial beings exist in space. This is absurd because space is only the locomotion of physical things, and so you are saying that non-physical things exist physically which is a contradiction of the most grievous kind. If the angel is not matter, like you now say it is, then it does not employ local motion because local motion is dependant on physical things (gravity, force, reaction, etc). I move locally because I am physical, and I have a physical effect on the physical things around me. My soul is non-physical, and does not have a physical effect on the things around me; nor does it move locally. "Justice" is also immaterial, and while it is real (though not a being), it does not exist in space.

You highlighting "Created" also does nothing to help your position because you still haven't shown why "created" means "in space and time."

I have given you my reasons why the angels do not involve locomotion; they are in my past three posts that you have not substantially answered. How am I ever to be free from these philosophical objections if you, my great teacher, do not help me to dispel them?

My most pressing question I now have for you is: how can an immaterial thing (ie, a thing that has no mass or energy in the local sense) move within space?

 

[DArceri]

No, my teacher, the ball is certainly not in my court, because your position is now that immaterial beings exist in space. This is absurd because space is only the locomotion of physical things, and so you are saying that non-physical things exist physically which is a contradiction of the most grievous kind. If the angel is not matter, like you now say it is, then it does not employ local motion because local motion is dependant on physical things (gravity, force, reaction, etc). I move locally because I am physical, and I have a physical effect on the physical things around me. My soul is non-physical, and does not have a physical effect on the things around me; nor does it move locally. "Justice" is also immaterial, and while it is real (though not a being), it does not exist in space.

You highlighting "Created" also does nothing to help your position because you still haven't shown why "created" means "in space and time."

I have given you my reasons why the angels do not involve locomotion; they are in my past three posts that you have not substantially answered. How am I ever to be free from these philosophical objections if you, my great teacher, do not help me to dispel them?

My most pressing question I now have for you is: how can an immaterial thing (ie, a thing that has no mass or energy in the local sense) move within space?

Nothing you've said is in scripture. AGAIN SIR, scripture suggests immaterial CREATED beings are located in time and space. The angels are shown in scripture warring with each other and moving to and fro in the heavens. You have given me nothing but your humanistic logic. I give you God's own words in scripture. Show me in scripture where time and space is destroyed. And while your at it, explain to me why God gives us glorified bodies if we are going to be spaceless immaterial beings in the afterlife.

 

[judechild]

Nothing you've said is in scripture. AGAIN SIR, scripture suggests immaterial CREATED beings are located in time and space.

Oh no, it is your understanding of scripture that suggests immaterial CREATED beings are located in time and space. There is also a passage where David says "when you hear a sound of marching in the tops of the mastic trees, act decisively, for the Lord will have gone forth before you to attack the camp of the Philistines" (2 Samuel 5:24). This passage suggests God involves Himself in locomotion; does this mean that we have to say that He exists only in space and time too? And again in Genesis 3:8: "when they heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day." Do these verses destroy our understanding of God sovereign from space and time?

The angels are shown in scripture warring with each other and moving to and fro in the heavens.

Already discribed: what is more terrible than a war of pure intellegences? And how else will you describe the actions of immaterial beings except through local motion? You have no experience with anything else.

You have given me noththing but your humanistic logic.

And it serves me well; it allows me to resist poorly constructed ideas.

I give you God's own words in scripture.

If I may: Your Lordship has not cited a single verse, and I doubt you have the poor taste to claim that your words are God's. You've alluded to several, but you have not given "God's own words."

Show me in scripture where time and space is destroyed.

I need do no such thing because I didn't claim they would be. Time will become meaningless, true, but space will not.

And while your at it, explain to me why God gives us glorified bodies if we are going to be immaterial beings in the afterlife.

We won't be immaterial forever, just as Jesus still retains His physical (glorified) Body. We will be immaterial in reference to time, until time ends and the Resurrection occurs. What I mean by that is, right now, I experience St. Jude as an immaterial person; after the Resurrection, we will have glorified bodies. But the glorified body is not just a resesitated corpse; it has a different relationship with nature. This is clear from Jesus' Post-Resurrection appearences.

 

[judechild]

St Jude, cousin of our Lord is also one of my favourites. No doubt when you were an atheist someone was asking St Jude, Patron St of Lost Causes to pray for you.

Part of the reason I took him as my patron is precisely because he's the "patron of lost causes" because I very often think I'm a lost cause

 

[DArceri]

Oh no, it is Your Lordship's understanding of scripture that suggests immaterial CREATED beings are located in time and space. There is also a passage where David says "when you hear a sound of marching in the tops of the mastic trees, act decisively, for the Lord will have gone forth before you to attack the camp of the Philistines" (2 Samuel 5:24). This passage suggests God involves Himself in locomotion; does this mean that we have to say that He exists only in space and time too? And again in Genesis 3:8: "when they heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day." Do these verses destroy our understanding of God sovereign from space and time?

STRAWMAN MY FRIEND....I never suggested God doesn't enter time and space in some manifested way. But note, He NEVER enters creation in His full glory.

 

[judechild]

It is not a strawman, because I used exactly your criteria for a being in space and time. You said: "even angels occupy time and space." And your evidence for it was "the angels are shown in scripture warring with each other and moving to and fro in the heavens." And "I guess when the Archangel Michael got held up and was late, he didn't really mean it" and "angels are created beings who move to and fro and cannot be in two places at once. This suggests that they are trapped in time and space like all of creation."

Under these criteria, then, God who "moves to and fro" in 2 Samuel and appears to "occupy time and space" is under the same limitations as those you place on the angel.

I objected before that the word "created" is arbitrary and does not affect placement in time and space. And your most recent "He NEVER enters creation in His full glory" is borderline Arianism; is Jesus the "Glory of the Father" or not? But that's irrelevent because the objection is irrelevent; do you think the angel is shown "in its full glory" since you acknowledge it is a non-material being, and so invisible to the human senses unless it is physically manifested?

 

[DArceri]

It is not a strawman, because I used exactly your criteria for a being in space and time. You said: "even angels occupy time and space." And your evidence for it was "the angels are shown in scripture warring with each other and moving to and fro in the heavens." And "I guess when the Archangel Michael got held up and was late, he didn't really mean it" and "angels are created beings who move to and fro and cannot be in two places at once. This suggests that they are trapped in time and space like all of creation."

Under these criteria, then, God who "moves to and fro" in 2 Samuel and appears to "occupy time and space" is under the same limitations as those you place on the angel.

I objected before that the word "created" is arbitrary and does not affect placement in time and space. And your most recent "He NEVER enters creation in His full glory" is borderline Arianism; is Jesus the "Glory of the Father" or not? But that's irrelevent because the objection is irrelevent; do you think the angel is shown "in its full glory" since you acknowledge it is a non-material being, and so invisible to the human senses unless it is physically manifested?

If you can explain to me how Christ, the Son of God can take on flesh and remain both God and man forever, I would suggest you just stay with what scripture reveals to us. Stop with the immaterial and the material. Jesus took on flesh and remains the Godman forever. Right.

 

[LOCO]

Part of the reason I took him as my patron is precisely because he's the "patron of lost causes" because I very often think I'm a lost cause

We all feel like 'lost causes' at different points of the journey. It helps to have the lanterns along the way.

 

[judechild]

If you can explain to me how Christ, the Son of God can take on flesh and remain both God and man forever, I would suggest you just stay with what scripture reveals to us.

Okay, like how Jesus is the Son of God ("Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM" John 8:58), and the Son of Man ("Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Mt. 16:13)? Jesus rose physically; he's still human and divine.

Stop with the immaterial and the material.

You apparently thought it was important enough that you argued with me about it for a few hours. Besides that the whole point of the argument is that the Saints are immaterial beings and therefore outside of space and time, and so not confined to the limitations of those dimensions. I'm sorry, but I will not ignore the previous arguments and their relevence simply because you do not find the conclusions that we are coming to pleasing.

Jesus took on flesh and remains the Godman forever. Right.

Yes, right. He took on flesh and remains the Godman forever. But that's not relevent to our discussion except in the sense that God can enter space and time in His "full glory" which undermines your latest argument.

And now, I'm going to end for tonight.

 

[judechild]

We all feel like 'lost causes' at different points of the journey. It helps to have the lanterns along the way.

Yes! St. Jude, ora pro nobis.

 

[DArceri]

[/color]


You apparently thought it was important enough that you argued with me about it for a few hours. Besides that the whole point of the argument is that the Saints are immaterial beings and therefore outside of space and time, and so not confined to the limitations of those dimensions. I'm sorry, but I will not ignore the previous arguments and their relevence simply because you do not find the conclusions that we are coming to pleasing.

Ok, so we are going to rehash this again and again I guess...The saints (currently) are disembodied spirits wait-ing for there glorified bodies in a PLACE called HEAVEN with Jesus as the GOD MAN. Its a dwelling place. It is not outside of time and space. God the Son entered time and space to reconcile man to GOD. If Heaven is a place, then time and space exists. Places do not exist outside of time. Anything outside of time just exists. There is no [-ing] verbs, for that would suggest time is going by. Just the action of think-ing thoughts takes up time. So if the spirits are pray-ing and WAIT-ING , then time exists.

If you want scripture, here it is. Please note, there is a place where the Saints (without there glorified bodies yet) are pray-ing (under the alter) and are told to wait: ".....And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."(Revelation 6:9-11)


.

 

[judechild]

Ok, so we are going to rehash this again and again I guess...The saints (currently) are disembodied spirits wait-ing for there glorified bodies in a PLACE called HEAVEN with Jesus as the GOD MAN. Its a dwelling place.

I wonder if putting every other word in caps does anything to assist its transfer of information, or if it just looks goofy. I do have to congradulate you, though, you have managed for the first time to post something relevent. When you say "the saints (currently) are disembodied" but they will not always be is a fair objection.

My response is what I gave in the last post: I currently experience the Saints as immaterial beings. They may be outside of time, but I am not; I'm still bound by time and have to experience things in time. So from this perspective of extended substance, yes, they are immaterial.

It is not outside of time and space. God the Son entered time and space to reconcile man to GOD.

Sure, God the Son entered time and space from this state we call Heaven.

If Heaven is a place, then time and space exists.

If Heaven is a state, then it is not.

Places do not exist outside of time. Anything outside of time just exists.

So, we could say that everything outside of time is existing.

There is no [-ing] verbs, for that would suggest time is going by. Just the action of think-ing thoughts takes up time. So if the spirits are pray-ing and WAIT-ING , then time exists.

The present-participle does not exclude the possibility of a static state. While the verbs "declining" "moving" etc. imply locomotion and time, "existing" is only a state. For example you can talk about God "not moving" or "not declining" but you cannot talk about Him "not existing" whether or not you think that time affects Him.

If you want scripture, here it is.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

Please note, there is a place where the Saints (without there glorified bodies yet) are pray-ing (under the alter) and are told to wait:

".....And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."(Revelation 6:9-11)

How else is John to describe things? He is a creature bound by time and space, and so are we. You have no experience with anything else (even if you float an idea of "a different time-dimention"). It is not that God Himself was waiting around for "the fullness of time" so that He would "[send] His Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). The "fullness of time" is in reference to us, not to God. So too the seasons and such in Revelation.

John's vision involks things that we understand. The altar in Heaven is a replica of the altars that the early Church used - they were placed over the bones of the martyrs and apostles. Still today, in the Catholic Church, the bones of the saints are within the altars. We also understand waiting and such because that is what we do.

You also do the same thing as John does when you say that "God the Son entered time and space to reconcile man to God." Was there, then, a time when God did not enter time and space? But if you say "yes" then now we've gone and applied time to God Himself. We've said that on Tuesday God had not entered time, and on Wednesday He did. But you said that time has no bounds on God. So, in the perspective of beings in time, there was a time when He entered. But in reference to Himself, we could not say the same thing unless (gasp) we have to talk of a time when God was entering time and space.

If you were going to write for me a story where the beings are always in the present, and where time has no effect, how would you write it?

 

[Presentist]

You're the first person I've met who can sound pompous about praying the Our Father.

I did not mean to imply that I was simply praying that particular prayer. I meant that when I am in temptation, I pray to God (our Father in Heaven). Whereas when you are in temptation, you pray to St. Jude.

I have found that praying to St. Jude when in temptation helps me to avoid sin.

To each his own I suppose. But I can show an example in the Bible where we are told to pray to God for help when tempted, whereas you cannot show an example in the Bible where we are told to pray to St. Jude for help against temptation.

.

 

[judechild]

I did not mean to imply that I was simply praying that particular prayer. I meant that when I am in temptation, I pray to God (our Father in Heaven). Whereas when you are in temptation, you pray to St. Jude.

And that is your false dilema. You say "I, on the one hand, pray to God. You, on the other hand, pray to St. Jude." That is falicious because the one does not exclude the other. I ask for the Intercession of St. Jude, and I also pray to God in the same situation. I showed that in the examples of prayer from the official texts which I posted.

To each his own I suppose.

You don't really believe that, so don't say it.

But I can show an example in the Bible where we are told to pray to God for help when tempted, whereas you cannot show an example in the Bible where we are told to pray to St. Jude for help against temptation.

I can show numerious instances where we are told to pray for one another and ask each other for prayer (and, if you remember, I already had this discussion with myself so that we wouldn't have to waste time on it, back in Post 3). I can also show that the Saints are still members of the body of Christ. I also can show the continuity throughout history of prayers of intercession.

 

[DArceri]

Was there, then, a time when God did not enter time and space? But if you say "yes" then now we've gone and applied time to God Himself. We've said that on Tuesday God had not entered time, and on Wednesday He did.

Uuuggghh...Depends on perspective. From our perspective, we speak in terms of a before and after when talking about God. We speak of creation having a starting point. But God who is uncreated and timeless is outside of creation, has no begining and no end. How God enters time is a mystery for finite minds of the created. The created will always have a dwelling place within time and space. The created will never enter a timeless uncreated state. Revelation 21 gives a us clue when it states that the 1st Heaven and 1st earth will pass away and a New Heaven and Earth, ie. a new DWELLING place of God, will be with man and we will be His people. "....The throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him".

REV 21
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

REV 22
1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.


2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb SHALL BE IN IT; and his servants shall serve him

 

[judechild]

Uuuggghh...Depends on perspective. From our perspective, we speak in terms of a before and after when talking about God. We speak of creation having a starting point. But God who is uncreated and timeless is outside of creation, has no begining and no end.

Why yes, I agree. But now that you've brought in perspective, I say the same thing about the Saints and their actions in Heaven. It's a trouble of perspective, which means that your objection from the present-participle now has no foundation.

How God enters time is a mystery for finite minds of the created. The created will always have a dwelling place within time and space. The created will never enter a timeless uncreated state.

You've made the same leap you've made since the beginning: a created thing must exist in time and space. But, you've acknowledged that angels are immaterial, and immaterial things by definition do not exist in space ("Justice" is immaterial, and does not exist in space; the soul is immaterial because it has no weight and does not take up any space).

Axioms:
P Immaterial things do not exist as material things do.
Q Material things possess weight and/or energy, and substance.
R Angels are immaterial things.
S Angels are created things

If Q is accepted, R is sufficiently proved because angels have no weight. P is ontologically proved. S is given.

If S, then angels are not eternal because they are contingent on the Being that creates them. But if R and Q, then angels do not exist in space; because space is defined in three deminsions, and weightless energy-less things are insufficient as material things. Only material things fit the citeria for existing in space.

Revelation 21 gives a us clue when it states that the 1st Heaven and 1st earth will pass away and a New Heaven and Earth, ie. a new DWELLING place of God, will be with man and we will be His people. "....The throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him".

That doesn't put us in any new situation than we've been in before, since the old Heaven is described in the same way: "In the year king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple..." (Isaiah 6:1 et omnia). In this Heaven also we have servants serving Him and such, but my same objections to your use of it remains.

Your insistence on fruit yielding every month sells the Scripture short because you ignore the deeper meaning. In the Gospels, Jesus curses the fig-tree because "when He reached it He found nothing but leaves; it was not the time for figs" (Mk. 11:13). When the Apostles comment, Jesus says "'Have faith in God'" (V. 22). We are not supposed to be like the fig tree; our fruit of faith and praise is always to be in season. The imagery is reinforced by "twelve kinds of fruit" one for each Apostle, on whom the Church/New Jerusalem is founded: "the wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14).

 

[DArceri]

[/color]

Why yes, I agree. But now that you've brought in perspective, I say the same thing about the Saints and their actions in Heaven. It's a trouble of perspective, which means that your objection from the present-participle now has no foundation.

Not so... You make the assumption the the saints are outside of time, but anything that is timeless by definition is also changeless. But we know that is not he case with the disembodied saints in Heaven.

You've made the same leap you've made since the beginning: a created thing must exist in time and space. But, you've acknowledged that angels are immaterial, and immaterial things by definition do not exist in space ("Justice" is immaterial, and does not exist in space; the soul is immaterial because it has no weight and does not take up any space

Axioms:
P Immaterial things do not exist as material things do.
Q Material things possess weight and/or energy, and substance.
R Angels are immaterial things.
S Angels are created things

If Q is accepted, R is sufficiently proved because angels have no weight. P is ontologically proved. S is given.

In regards to R, you are making an ontological assumption that angels are immaterial. But we know that if angels are outside of time, then they would be changeless and could just will things to happen like God. Since we know they are not changeless and cannot will things like God, then it suggests they are spacial beings in another time dimension.

.... because space is defined in three deminsions, and weightless energy-less things are insufficient as material things. Only material things fit the citeria for existing in space.

Sorry, but space is not defined by only 3 dimensions. There are 'time scientist' who are convinced there up to 9 to 12 time dimensions.

That doesn't put us in any new situation than we've been in before, since the old Heaven is described in the same way: "In the year king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple..." (Isaiah 6:1 et omnia). In this Heaven also we have servants serving Him and such, but my same objections to your use of it remains.

Yes, this is currently the Heaven that exists where God's throne is and angels have access to. And if you Read Job 1, you'll see that this is the same place where even Satan Himself has access to. This is why in Revelation there will ALSO be a New Heaven created where nobody enters the gate except for the righteous.

Your insistence on fruit yielding every month sells the Scripture short because you ignore the deeper meaning. In the Gospels, Jesus curses the fig-tree because "when He reached it He found nothing but leaves; it was not the time for figs" (Mk. 11:13). When the Apostles comment, Jesus says "'Have faith in God'" (V. 22). We are not supposed to be like the fig tree; our fruit of faith and praise is always to be in season. The imagery is reinforced by "twelve kinds of fruit" one for each Apostle, on whom the Church/New Jerusalem is founded: "the wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14).

That is spiritualizing the text. Not even your Catholic faith adheres to such interpretations. Kind of strange you spiritualize almost everything in the bible except the body and blood of Christ. That you take literally. Go figure.

 

[Presentist]

I can show numerious instances where we are told to pray for one another and ask each other for prayer.

Is there any instance in the Bible where a living person asks a deceased person to pray for them?

.

 

[judechild]

Not so... You make the assumption the the saints are outside of time, but anything that is timeless by definition is also changeless. But we know that is not he case with the disembodied saints in Heaven.

Then you've taken back what you gave. You said before that God, who is outside of time, enters it. That means there was a time when He had not entered it. You responded that this is a problem of perceptions. But what goes one way may go the other. A thing can "exit" time as well.

Also, the points I brought up were only to respond to your insistence that the present-participle necessarily implied time. But if we can apply it to the Timeless Being, your argument falls short. This may be kicking a dead horse, because you haven't tried to defend it recently.

Is God currently in time? If He is, does He now change?

In regards to R, you are making an ontological assumption that angels are immaterial.

How nice of you to try to engage my "humanistic logic" (whatever that is). I made no assumption, because you already granted that axiom back in post 23: "AGAIN SIR, scripture suggests immaterial CREATED beings." Are you taking back another thing you gave and now say that angels are "material CREATED beings?"

It also is not an ontological assumption because Q is "material things possess no weight or energy, and substance." You'd have to dispute Q in order to dispute R, or change your definition of an angel.

But we know that if angels are outside of time, then

they would be changeless and could just will things to happen like God.

Even if we give you changeless, "could just will things to happen like God" does not follow by any logical process. I agree, angels are changeless; they are just created.

Since we know they are not changeless and cannot will things like God, then it suggests they are spacial beings in another time dimension

.

You'll have to retract your previous statement that angels are immaterial, and then explain to me how a being without matter and energy, and that takes up no space is material. Then you can tell me which episode of Star Trek you've pulled "another time dimension" from.

Sorry, but space is not defined by only 3 dimensions. There are 'time scientist' who are convinced there up to 9 to 12 time dimensions.

You are half-a-decade behind; String Theory is in the process of being debunked. Of course, since you are the Great Teacher, we can all benefit from your knowledge of speculative physics at your next convenience. (Not to mention that "time" is not "space," and you either understand this, or have been very dishonest with us by constantly talking about "Time and space," as though they were separate things).

Yes, this is currently the Heaven that exists where God's throne is and angels have access to.

You missed the important part. I said the same objections remain with this New Heaven as they did with the Old:How else is John to describe things? He is a creature bound by time and space, and so are we. You have no experience with anything else.

That is spiritualizing the text. Not even your Catholic faith adheres to such interpretations.

Kind of strange you spiritualize almost everything in the bible except the body and blood of Christ. That you take literally. Go figure.

I forgot that you know everything about all things, including Catholicism. You have to patient with me. Maybe you could tell me what my Catholic faith adheres to on the subject then?

I spiritualize the text because I say that the picture of a tree in the New Jerusalem isn't there to describe the state of arborology in Heaven? What is more, Catholicism has an understanding of the unity of body and soul and the relations of human and divine that go beyond anything you are likely to give me. We overspiritulize nothing; you just don't find what we believe to be convenient. After all, a Buddhist (or most Evangelicals) would say we are too grounded in the physical. Either Catholicism is too physical and too spiritual, or the objectors are the ones who are too far in either direction.