Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

hedrick said:

I’m not limited to using your quotes. Bernstein’s book has additional material that does say this.
"Tractate Sanhedrin examines the question of capital punishment and, at the end, moves from the fate of executed criminals to the subject of death in general.15 Here the Mishnah makes a remarkable declaration: “All Israel have a portion in the world to come” (San. 90a; p. 601). This manifesto does not mean that only Jews may enjoy this inheritance, but rather that even criminals executed by the local courts do. It must be assumed that their deaths purge them of their sins."...

Click to expand...

I don’t care much for tertiary quotes from a non-Jewish writer. The Talmud is available online. I even linked to it. Nothing here, absolutely nothing, negates anything I quoted from the 3 Jewish sources I quoted.

I'm using murderers as an example of a capital crime. There were others. That death purges one of sin is supported by Paul: "For whoever has died is freed from sin." (Rom 6:7)

Click to expand...

One out-of-context quote from Paul. Which OBTW ignores the four passages where Paul states that 22 categories of miscreants “have no inheritance in heaven.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:17. What do we do about those and everything else Paul wrote?

The problem is that there's lots of beliefs, many of which don't agree, over a long period of time. But I don't care what the Talmud asserts. It's all speculation, which has no real authority for me. Where it's useful is in illuminating what Jesus' hearers were likely to understand when he said what he did.

Click to expand...

Your opinion of the Talmud does not interest me. It was considered authoritative by the Jews otherwise they would not have written it. It reflects the view of the Jews in that era. And it reflects the beliefs of the Jews at that time.

This isn't an easy job, because we have very little contemporary evidence. But as far as I can tell, the most likely views in Jesus' time said that all of Israel would come out of Gehennon except a few particularly notorious people. But Jesus was preaching to ordinary people. For them, Gehennon is probably a maximum of a year. The one-year maximum was highly controversial in the debates that happened over time. But it seems to have applied around Jesus' time.

Click to expand...

I post credible, verifiable, historical etc, evidence. You speculate.

Another, safer approach might be to say that given the varying ideas about Gehennon, people would understand it as referring to punishment in the afterlife but would not assume that Jesus was referring to any particular views of how long it lasted or who went there. In that sense, "hell" is a misleading translation, because for most people today it explicitly means ECT. Since Jesus used quite a variety of images, ranging from missing a dinner (Luke 14:15 ff), saying that he wasn't giving any particular description of the form punishment would take is probably a reasonable conclusion anyway. My real position is not universalism, but simply that Jesus taught that we would be accountable for what we did, without describing the specific way that accountability would happen.
For my skepticism over ECT I don't refer to any particular reconstruction of 1st Cent. Jewish views, but Paul's description of the end. I don't think that explicitly gives us universalism, but I don't see how eternal torment, particularly of most humans, could be consistent with it.

Click to expand...

From my previous post the parts you seem to ignore or try to minimize.

Lazarus Short said:

Eternal punishment also contradicts the Law of the Jubilee, which states that whatever the debt is, if you have even sold yourself, when the Jubilee is declared, you must be set free and debt free, to go home to your inherited estate. Paul endorses this in Romans 6:7, "For he that is dead is freed from sin." If sin has been our Master all our lives, we are free of it when we die, and when we are resurrected, we receive our inheritance/rewards.

Click to expand...

Do we have any reason to think the Jubilee year was intended to be an earthly model of God's treatment of the unsaved? No, we don't. There are various scholarly opinions as to the origin and purpose of the Jubilee year, but I have found nothing to suggest it has ever been regarded as having any bearing on the fate of the unsaved.

Your citation of Romans 6:7 is the familiar Universalist tactic of pulling a verse completely out of context and making it say something it was not intended to say. We are freed from sin when we die because we are no longer in the flesh.

Arguing with Universalists is like playing theological Whack-a-Mole. Whack one argument over the head and another pops up there ... and over there ... and over there. It's endless - and the Universalists enjoy the attention. This is why I decline to follow threads like this deeper and deeper into the weeds. To do so just gives the Universalist arguments a veneer of respectability that, in my opinion, they don't deserve.

Think Jesus was aware of the OT verses regarding the Jubilee year? Of course He was. To give your theory any plausibility, you would need to both (1) establish that the Jubilee was intended to illustrate God's treatment of the unsaved and (2) plausibly explain why Jesus said the numerous non-Universalist things He actually said.

Ditto for Romans 6:7. Not only would you have to establish why you are entitled to take it out of context and give it a Universalist spin, but you would also have to explain away the many explicitly non-Universalist verses found throughout Paul's epistles - some of which I cited in my demolishment of the Universalist spin on 1 Corinthians 15:22.

The Universalists' efforts to find support in the Bible smack of desperation and, to me, only weaken their position. Their real position is, "We don't much care what the Bible says, we cannot accept or worship a God of love and mercy who would send anyone to eternal torment." Why not just admit this?

I believe a solid biblical case can be made for eternal punishment. A solid biblical case can be made for a period of punishment followed by annihilation. But the case for Universalism is more like biblical desperation.

Irkle Berserkle said:

Do we have any reason to think the Jubilee year was intended to be an earthly model of God's treatment of the unsaved? No, we don't. There are various scholarly opinions as to the origin and purpose of the Jubilee year, but I have found nothing to suggest it has ever been regarded as having any bearing on the fate of the unsaved.

Your citation of Romans 6:7 is the familiar Universalist tactic of pulling a verse completely out of context and making it say something it was not intended to say. We are freed from sin when we die because we are no longer in the flesh.

Arguing with Universalists is like playing theological Whack-a-Mole. Whack one argument over the head and another pops up there ... and over there ... and over there. It's endless - and the Universalists enjoy the attention. This is why I decline to follow threads like this deeper and deeper into the weeds. To do so just gives the Universalist arguments a veneer of respectability that, in my opinion, they don't deserve.

Think Jesus was aware of the OT verses regarding the Jubilee year? Of course He was. To give your theory any plausibility, you would need to both (1) establish that the Jubilee was intended to illustrate God's treatment of the unsaved and (2) plausibly explain why Jesus said the numerous non-Universalist things He actually said.

Ditto for Romans 6:7. Not only would you have to establish why you are entitled to take it out of context and give it a Universalist spin, but you would also have to explain away the many explicitly non-Universalist verses found throughout Paul's epistles - some of which I cited in my demolishment of the Universalist spin on 1 Corinthians 15:22.

The Universalists' efforts to find support in the Bible smack of desperation and, to me, only weaken their position. Their real position is, "We don't much care what the Bible says, we cannot accept or worship a God of love and mercy who would send anyone to eternal torment." Why not just admit this?

I believe a solid biblical case can be made for eternal punishment. A solid biblical case can be made for a period of punishment followed by annihilation. But the case for Universalism is more like biblical desperation.

Click to expand...

The Master asks: What is better - guacamole or whackamole?

The reason you get so tired of endless arguments and proofs of the salvation of All, is that the Bible is an integrated and cross-referenced whole, in which any part supports the whole message - and that message is that God will restore His creation, the Cosmos, all of it. If we keep coming up with these things, versus the paltry handful of ECT proof texts, it's because the Bible is a record of man's failure and God's faithfulness.

If you take off your theo-illogical filters, you might realize that God has stated His intent to save all, and sworn that it will happen.

Lazarus Short said:

The Master asks: What is better - guacamole or whackamole?
The reason you get so tired of endless arguments and proofs of the salvation of All, is that the Bible is an integrated and cross-referenced whole, in which any part supports the whole message - and that message is that God will restore His creation, the Cosmos, all of it. If we keep coming up with these things, versus the paltry handful of ECT proof texts, it's because the Bible is a record of man's failure and God's faithfulness.
If you take off your theo-illogical filters, you might realize that God has stated His intent to save all, and sworn that it will happen.

Click to expand...

Show me one verse, 2 or more would be better, where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, speaking says in unequivocal terms, that they will save all mankind, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death, and I'm right there.
The only theo-illogical filters are over there. If the UR "all mankind will be saved" was true Jesus would never have made the statements He did in Matt 25:46, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:[κολασις] but the righteous into life eternal.
1 John 4:18
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[κολασις] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1 Jn 4:18 The one who has kolasisis is not made perfect =no correction.
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, and “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite age,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand"/"never perish.” By definition “Aionios life” here means “eternal life.”
In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite age, by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

Der Alte said:

I don't recall ever saying anything like "an eye for an eternity in hell'?" If you have a specific post in mind, quote it and I might be able to respond.

Click to expand...

Without rehearsing the detail of your fulsome posts der Alte, the gist of your objection as I understand it is that you posit the Jewish rabbinical sources teach that there can and will be eternal hellfire damnation as punishment for earthly sins. Correct?

If this is so, then is this not a divine justice issue, which may be conveniently summarised as 'an eye for an eternity in hell'? Now maybe this isn't as way out as one might think, and it may be just the allusion that Jesus is making when he admonishes us to pluck out the eye rather than face the judgment of Gehenna.

That aside, my question is whether there's anything in the Torah to support this highly significant departure from the 'eye for an eye' standard measure of justice. I'm aware, for instance, of the sevenfold restoration principle for the thief in Pro 6:31, and for the ox thief fivefold restoration and sheep thief fourfold restoration (Exo 22:1). Also in Rev 18:6 the harlot of Babylon is repaid doubly.

So where in the Torah, or anywhere in the Bible, do we find support for the principle of infinite and interminable punishment for sins or transgressions?

Irkle Berserkle said:

Arguing with Universalists is like playing theological Whack-a-Mole. Whack one argument over the head and another pops up there ... and over there ... and over there. It's endless - and the Universalists enjoy the attention. This is why I decline to follow threads like this deeper and deeper into the weeds. To do so just gives the Universalist arguments a veneer of respectability that, in my opinion, they don't deserve.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much just flaming and trolling a group. Also such a display of contempt doesn't lend one credibility, much less respectability.

Der Alte said:

Show me one verse, 2 or more would be better

Click to expand...

Why should he or anyone else bother when you're likely to just give out another textual slap in the face?

Shrewd Manager said:

Without rehearsing the detail of your fulsome posts der Alte, the gist of your objection as I understand it is that you posit the Jewish rabbinical sources teach that there can and will be eternal hellfire damnation as punishment for earthly sins. Correct?
If this is so, then is this not a divine justice issue, which may be conveniently summarised as 'an eye for an eternity in hell'? Now maybe this isn't as way out as one might think, and it may be just the allusion that Jesus is making when he admonishes us to pluck out the eye rather than face the judgment of Gehenna.
That aside, my question is whether there's anything in the Torah to support this highly significant departure from the 'eye for an eye' standard measure of justice. I'm aware, for instance, of the sevenfold restoration principle for the thief in Pro 6:31, and for the ox thief fivefold restoration and sheep thief fourfold restoration (Exo 22:1). Also in Rev 18:6 the harlot of Babylon is repaid doubly.
So where in the Torah, or anywhere in the Bible, do we find support for the principle of infinite and interminable punishment for sins or transgressions?

Click to expand...

In the movie "Cool Hand Luke" the prison captain, Strother Martin, said this to escaped/recaptured prisoner Luke, Paul Newman.
You still don't get it.
You refuse to actually read and make even the slightest effort to comprehend what I said. The vss. you referred to do not address my posts in any way.
Evidently as you skim through, certainly not actually read, my posts your mind is going at a 100 MPH trying to think of a vs. or something you read/heard somewhere that you think will refute what I said.
Summary:

MMXX said:

Why should he or anyone else bother when you're likely to just give out another textual slap in the face?

Click to expand...

In other words no one on the UR side can provide even one verse where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, says unequivocally, that all mankind will absolutely be saved, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death. Or words to that effect.
Here is what I would like to see.
Here are several statements by Jesus that are clear, unequivocal. There is no way this passage can be misunderstood. They require no explanation or clarification.

Der Alte said:

Show me one verse, 2 or more would be better, where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, speaking says in unequivocal terms, that they will save all mankind, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death, and I'm right there.

Click to expand...

This isn't quite everyone, but it's close:

"Amen, I say to you: all things will be forgiven to people, both their sins and the blasphemies that they blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never gains forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29, Anchor Bible)

The problem is that, like quotes from Paul, it's easy to say that he didn't really mean all. To be honest I'm not sure myself that this was meant literally, but aside from the one eternal sin it does respond to your challenge.

Incidentally, I quoted from the Anchor Bible because NRSV doesn't translate the "all" which is there in the Greek. Hermeneia is similar to the Anchor Bible. The Word commentary is even more explicit:

"I assure you, all things shall be forgiven every human being, all sinful behavior and all blasphemies that they utter. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

They comment:

"“All things shall be forgiven” (πάντα ἀφεθήσεται) emphasizes the startling and unparalleled declaration of total forgiveness by bringing forward at the beginning of the sentence the sweeping, inclusive subject, “all things” (πάντα). This subject is then resumed and specified at the end of the sentence. The divine passive expresses God’s role as the forgiver and the future tense points to God’s ultimate actions at the final judgment.
“Every human being,” literally, “the sons of men” (τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), a Semitic idiom meaning all humanity (cf. τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in Matt 12:31), stands in contrast to “the Son of man” (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) in Luke 12:10 // Matt 12:32. Mark’s phrase renders with plural nouns the generic singular of the Aramaic בר נשא, bar nāšā, whereas the Q-form refers to Jesus as a self-designation.

...[argument that he said sins and blasphemies to be clear that forgiveness included both offenses against other people and God]

"This saying, therefore, speaks forgiveness to all humanity for all sins committed against God and other human beings. One could not imagine a more universal or comprehensive expression of forgiveness."

To my knowledge, none of these sources is promoting universalism.

hedrick said:

This isn't quite everyone, but it's close:

"Amen, I say to you: all things will be forgiven to people, both their sins and the blasphemies that they blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never gains forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29, Anchor Bible)

The problem is that, like quotes from Paul, it's easy to say that he didn't really mean all. To be honest I'm not sure myself that this was meant literally, but aside from the one eternal sin it does respond to your challenge.

Incidentally, I quoted from the Anchor Bible because NRSV doesn't translate the "all" which is there in the Greek. Hermeneia is similar to the Anchor Bible. The Word commentary is even more explicit:

"I assure you, all things shall be forgiven every human being, all sinful behavior and all blasphemies that they utter. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

They comment:

"“All things shall be forgiven” (πάντα ἀφεθήσεται) emphasizes the startling and unparalleled declaration of total forgiveness by bringing forward at the beginning of the sentence the sweeping, inclusive subject, “all things” (πάντα). This subject is then resumed and specified at the end of the sentence. The divine passive expresses God’s role as the forgiver and the future tense points to God’s ultimate actions at the final judgment.
“Every human being,” literally, “the sons of men” (τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), a Semitic idiom meaning all humanity (cf. τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in Matt 12:31), stands in contrast to “the Son of man” (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) in Luke 12:10 // Matt 12:32. Mark’s phrase renders with plural nouns the generic singular of the Aramaic בר נשא, bar nāšā, whereas the Q-form refers to Jesus as a self-designation."

To my knowledge, none of these sources are promoting universalism.

Click to expand...

I agree no UR here. Everything mentioned above will happen in this world, not after death. Matthew 25:41 ff. does not indicate any last minute professions of faith.

Der Alte said:

In the movie "Cool Hand Luke" the prison captain, Strother Martin, said this to escaped/recaptured prisoner Luke, Paul Newman.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men, you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it anymore than you men."​

You still don't get it.
You refuse to actually read and make even the slightest effort to comprehend what I said. The vss. you referred to do not address my posts in any way.
Evidently as you skim through, certainly not actually read, my posts your mind is going at a 100 MPH trying to think of a vs. or something you read/heard somewhere that you think will refute what I said.
Summary:

<>The Jews of Jesus' day had a significant belief in what moderns call hell. Jesus knew about that belief.
<>Jesus never confronted nor criticized the Jewish hell belief.
<>What Jesus taught about the fate of unrighteous people often mirrored the Jewish belief in hell.
<>When the Jews, who already believed in hell, heard Jesus teach about hell they would have understood Jesus to be supporting their belief.
<>Your opinions about this are not in the least compelling​

Click to expand...

Ok Cool Hand Alte. I'm asking you what support in the Torah there is for what you claim to be the Jewish rabbinical belief in eternal torment, as a justice principle.

There's no point in your opining that Jesus never criticised the alleged Jewish hell belief. Because I say he did, by criticising the Pharisees in various ways, as exemplified perhaps by the Rich man and Lazarus teaching, the moral of which is, 'As ye judge, so will ye be judged' and 'He who thinks he stands best beware lest he falls'. This is condign justice, which is the 'equal measure', or proportionality principle (ie the punishment fits the crime).

So, not your opinion der Alte as to whether Jesus accepted the alleged Jewish rabbinic belief in eternal hell (which itself is uncertain), but whether any principle of divine retribution under Torah supports 'infinite punishment' justice.

hedrick said:

This isn't quite everyone, but it's close:

"Amen, I say to you: all things will be forgiven to people, both their sins and the blasphemies that they blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never gains forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29, Anchor Bible)

The problem is that, like quotes from Paul, it's easy to say that he didn't really mean all. To be honest I'm not sure myself that this was meant literally, but aside from the one eternal sin it does respond to your challenge.

Incidentally, I quoted from the Anchor Bible because NRSV doesn't translate the "all" which is there in the Greek. Hermeneia is similar to the Anchor Bible. The Word commentary is even more explicit:

"I assure you, all things shall be forgiven every human being, all sinful behavior and all blasphemies that they utter. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

They comment:

"“All things shall be forgiven” (πάντα ἀφεθήσεται) emphasizes the startling and unparalleled declaration of total forgiveness by bringing forward at the beginning of the sentence the sweeping, inclusive subject, “all things” (πάντα). This subject is then resumed and specified at the end of the sentence. The divine passive expresses God’s role as the forgiver and the future tense points to God’s ultimate actions at the final judgment.
“Every human being,” literally, “the sons of men” (τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), a Semitic idiom meaning all humanity (cf. τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in Matt 12:31), stands in contrast to “the Son of man” (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) in Luke 12:10 // Matt 12:32. Mark’s phrase renders with plural nouns the generic singular of the Aramaic בר נשא, bar nāšā, whereas the Q-form refers to Jesus as a self-designation.
...
"This saying, therefore, speaks forgiveness to all humanity for all sins committed against God and other human beings. One could not imagine a more universal or comprehensive expression of forgiveness."

To my knowledge, none of these sources is promoting universalism.

Click to expand...

I see no reason to understand "sons of men" as meaning a total, but rather being representative. For example, if someone says "Humanity never learns from its mistakes." it is stating something that is generally true but that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. So supplying an "all" when the term is being used to indicate a general condition is neither necessary nor illuminating. All sins will be forgiven of humanity is just as understandable to mean that every imaginable sin will be forgiven of someone within the populace of those forgiven without specifying that it is universally true, as it is just as understandable as a general statement. The comprehensiveness of the forgiveness is in relation to the notion that no sin puts one beyond grace, which is in keeping with a view of hell that holds that it is the human will which condemns itself rather than God consigning them to torment. So forgiveness can at once be comprehensive while still limited.

Der Alte said:

I agree no UR here. Everything mentioned above will happen in this world, not after death. Matthew 25:41 ff. does not indicate any last minute professions of faith.

Click to expand...

This saying seem to require repentance or professions of faith at all, whether in thi work or the next.

hedrick said:

"Amen, I say to you: all things will be forgiven to people, both their sins and the blasphemies that they blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never gains forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29, Anchor Bible)

Click to expand...

If that's correct, then eternal punishment would still be meted out on the basis of the principle of condign or proportionate justice.

I'm no Greek scholar, but 'to blaspheme' here is aorist tense, and our old friend 'aioniou' is used so as to be rendered dynamically as: 'Whoever is blaspheming the HS is not being forgiven and is perpetually in sin'. The sense is that as long as you continue to reject the kingdom, you're shutting yourself out from salvation. It's a 'Repent ye brood of vipers'-type teaching.

The reason Der Alte's challenge doesn't make sense is that no matter how explicit a statement of (almost?) universal salvation is, no one will accept it. There will always be a reason to deny that it's "all".

MMXX said:

This is pretty much just flaming and trolling a group. Also such a display of contempt doesn't lend one credibility, much less respectability.

Click to expand...

Brian, I couldn't agree more. Now shall I go back to bashing infernalists.

Lord have mercy.

hedrick said:

The reason Der Alte's challenge doesn't make sense is that no matter how explicit a statement of (almost?) universal salvation is, no one will accept it. There will always be a reason to deny that it's "all".

Click to expand...

I don't believe that to be true, especially since so far no unambiguously explicit statement has been produced. Case in point being the ambiguity in whether "sons of men" refers to a general or universal statement.

Fervent said:

I don't believe that to be true, especially since so far no unambiguously explicit statement has been produced.

Click to expand...

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

I'm going to keep repeating it until it sinks in. 'All the ends of the earth' - that includes you, me, the dog, the monkey and the fish.

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (Rev 5:13)

Behold the glory of God! The plan, the consummation, the victory.

I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. (Jn 8:50)

Shrewd Manager said:

Ok Cool Hand Alte. I'm asking you what support in the Torah there is for what you claim to be the Jewish rabbinical belief in eternal torment, as a justice principle.
There's no point in your opining that Jesus never criticised the alleged Jewish hell belief. Because I say he did, by criticising the Pharisees in various ways, as exemplified perhaps by the Rich man and Lazarus teaching, the moral of which is, 'As ye judge, so will ye be judged' and 'He who thinks he stands best beware lest he falls'. This is condign justice, which is the 'equal measure', or proportionality principle (ie the punishment fits the crime).
So, not your opinion der Alte as to whether Jesus accepted the alleged Jewish rabbinic belief in eternal hell (which itself is uncertain), but whether any principle of divine retribution under Torah supports 'infinite punishment' justice.

Click to expand...

Undeniable evidence you have not read even one of my posts where I quoted the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1972 Encyclopedia and the pre-Christianity Talmud. All you want to do is argue. See e.g. my post [#4838]. The O.T. quotations are highlighted in blue. Don't even think about trying to argue about the vss. Your biased opinion is meaningless. What is relevant is how did the Jews understand their Hebrew scriptures.
Know this there is no, zero, none counter argument you can concoct that I can't refute..