A question for the faithful.

[AlexBP]

So when I request a quoted example from you to justify your assertion that...

"Most of the arguments that atheists toss at me are so absurd and illogical..."

You respond with an assertion made myself? Seriously?

Yes. Why shouldn't I point to your false statement as an example of an absurd and illogical argument?

That neither addresses my question specifically or directly and does nothing to justify your assertion.

If you ask for an example of an absurd and illogical argument made by an atheist and I respond by giving you an example of an absurd and illogical statement made by an atheist, then that specifically and directly addresses your question. Denial on your part won't change the fact.

My assertion was not intended as an argument

Actually it was; you said so. In post #32 I said this:

However, I've never been given any convincing argument that my religion was false. Most of the arguments that atheists toss at me are so absurd and illogical that they tend to strengthen my conviction that Christianity is true.
​

In post #36, you quoted that back to me and then said this:

What about the fact that christianity adopted most of its rituals from the mithra religion?
​

So I made a statement about arguments offered by atheists, and in direct reply to that you offered the "fact"--actually a fiction, of course--about Christianity copying from Mithraism. Obviously you intended that so-called fact to be an argument, since you offered it in reply to my statement that I'd never seen a convincing argument. For you to now flip-flop and cling to a meaningless, hair-splitting difference between an "argument" and an "assertion" is obviously not going to get you anywhere.

(relying on memory from research in 2007)

Really? christianity has almost certainly adopted some of its rituals and traditions from external sources including mithraism. This is not as blatantly untrue as you choose to believe.

How about this? If your claim about Christianity copying from Mithraism is actually based on "research" rather than merely make-believe on your part, why don't you tell me what that research is. Give me a citation to proper research material (title, author, year of publication, &c...) and quote the exact passage which justifies your claim about Christianity copying from Mithraism. I'll then read the book or article that you refer to and see whether it actually says what you claim it says. Until you do that, I'll feel pretty confident in believing that the claim is make-believe on your part. After all, even your fellow atheists have made vain attempts to correct your ignorance on this topic.

(I'm sure you haven't forgotten your disastrous attempt to refer to the book by Mary Boyce, and that this time you'll know better than to cite a book you haven't actually read.)

 

[trientje]

Mithraism, When reading the posts here I couldn't help but wonder. Unless we are all ancient history scholars one should keep an open mind and to want to read many sources when it comes to ancient beliefs. And so here is one source of ancient history from the bible, using the bible as a history source.
http://www.torahclass.com/images/stories/pdf/joshua/ATCwk1.pdf. In this presentation Nimrod is talked about. Nimrod was the leader of revolt against God. He was the founder of mystery Babylon religions. He was the son of Cush. Nimrod later became known as Ba'al. Unless we are willing to read and learn from various sites then we can not present a credible argument.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

You're forgetting many other possible options. For example:

3: The story is a fabrication

Which would mean that the same people who invented the story ( = knew very well it was a lie, because....you know...they invented it themselves) would have used this story that they invented to go from scared and shattered cowering in dark corners in a house in Jerusalem, to boldly proclaiming their own lie, which they knew to be a lie whereever they could, to the point of death and byond.

The story CANNOT be a fabrication, because the people who supposedly fabricated it, cannot be said not to have believed it.

Care to try again?

 

[madaz]

Yes. Why shouldn't I point to your false statement as an example of an absurd and illogical argument?

If you ask for an example of an absurd and illogical argument made by an atheist and I respond by giving you an example of an absurd and illogical statement made by an atheist, then that specifically and directly addresses your question. Denial on your part won't change the fact.

Actually it was; you said so. In post #32 I said this:

However, I've never been given any convincing argument that my religion was false. Most of the arguments that atheists toss at me are so absurd and illogical that they tend to strengthen my conviction that Christianity is true.
​

In post #36, you quoted that back to me and then said this:

What about the fact that christianity adopted most of its rituals from the mithra religion?
​

So I made a statement about arguments offered by atheists, and in direct reply to that you offered the "fact"--actually a fiction, of course--about Christianity copying from Mithraism. Obviously you intended that so-called fact to be an argument, since you offered it in reply to my statement that I'd never seen a convincing argument. For you to now flip-flop and cling to a meaningless, hair-splitting difference between an "argument" and an "assertion" is obviously not going to get you anywhere.

How about this? If your claim about Christianity copying from Mithraism is actually based on "research" rather than merely make-believe on your part, why don't you tell me what that research is. Give me a citation to proper research material (title, author, year of publication, &c...) and quote the exact passage which justifies your claim about Christianity copying from Mithraism. I'll then read the book or article that you refer to and see whether it actually says what you claim it says. Until you do that, I'll feel pretty confident in believing that the claim is make-believe on your part. After all, even your fellow atheists have made vain attempts to correct your ignorance on this topic.

(I'm sure you haven't forgotten your disastrous attempt to refer to the book by Mary Boyce, and that this time you'll know better than to cite a book you haven't actually read.)

AlexBp-I have started a new thread on the subject of Mithraism as it is off topic here.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Which would mean that the same people who invented the story ( = knew very well it was a lie, because....you know...they invented it themselves) would have used this story that they invented to go from scared and shattered cowering in dark corners in a house in Jerusalem, to boldly proclaiming their own lie, which they knew to be a lie whereever they could, to the point of death and byond.

The story CANNOT be a fabrication, because the people who supposedly fabricated it, cannot be said not to have believed it.

Care to try again?

There have been multiple examples, even in the present day of people making up a religion from nothing. For example: Joseph Smith with Mormonism and L. Ron Hubbard with Scientology.

Saying it's impossible that people could make up a religion and have people buy into it is simply wrong. It's still possible in the present day, and would have likely been far easier 2,000 years ago.


Another possibility is that Jesus existed as a Jewish Rabbi who built up a following, and over time more and more legends became attributed to him. Similar to a Robin Hood or Davy Crockett style story. Many tall tales develop based on people that may have, or actually did exist.

The authors of the New Testament wrote their books decades after Jesus's lifetime, and never met him in person. That part is agreed upon even by Christian Biblical Scholars. Attributing miracles to him, along with elements co-opted from other religions is certainly not out of the question. It's quite possible the authors actually believed what they were writing.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

There have been multiple examples, even in the present day of people making up a religion from nothing. For example: Joseph Smith with Mormonism and L. Ron Hubbard with Scientology.

Saying it's impossible that people could make up a religion and have people buy into it is simply wrong. It's still possible in the present day, and would have likely been far easier 2,000 years ago.

True, only that wasn't what I said.
Read it again.
After the Crucifixion, the Apostles were scattered and in hiding, afraid that they would be next.
3 days later, they basically told the Jewish leaders where to shove their objections, and proclaimed the Gospel from the streets, rooftops, and in the Temple. Something changed in those three days.
How did a bunch of scattered and scared fishermen and workers go from hiding in fear, to standing up for the message even to the point of martyrdom (which became the fate of all except the Apostle John).
Especially since the Jewish leaders could easily have crushed the message from the beginning by opening the tomb in front of everyone and displaying the dead, rotting body of Jesus. They didn't.

Also, the bolded part is part of the "Poor stupid ancients, so much dumber than us. Man, you could tell them ANYTHING and they'd believe it"-narrative....which is, itself, ridiculous.

Another possibility is that Jesus existed as a Jewish Rabbi who built up a following, and over time more and more legends became attributed to him. Similar to a Robin Hood or Davy Crockett style story. Many tall tales develop based on people that may have, or actually did exist.

Only, there wasn't enough time between the life of Christ and the penning of the NT for those kinds of legends to happen. And anyone who knows anything about legends and how they form, will tell you this. Paul's letters are from the late 40s to the early 60s. Eyewitnesses to the events were still alive.

The authors of the New Testament wrote their books decades after Jesus's lifetime, and never met him in person.

Paul didn't meet Jesus in person. Neither did Luke, probably. Peter, John, Matthew, on the other hand, most certainly DID. The author of Hebrews is unknown, with much pointing towards Barnabas.

That part is agreed upon even by Christian Biblical Scholars.

Heh. Just your luck to try to pull that stunt with a theologian, who knows that there is no such consensus that you claim.
Sure, liberal scholars prefer to explain away everything, but they haven't got ground to stand on in doing so. Furthermore, there are also conservative scholars, and these take a decidedly different viewpoint.

Attributing miracles to him, along with elements co-opted from other religions is certainly not out of the question.

Yes it is, when you know the context in which the NT came into being. The vast majority (not all!) of the books of the NT are decidedly Jewish, written by Jews in a Jewish context, with Jewish concerns. It is wholly unthinkable for Jews to just toss in some elements of paganism into the narrative, and you'd know this if you had the first clue about oral cultures like 1st century Judaism.

It's quite possible the authors actually believed what they were writing.

Not if they made up the story, as you claim.

 

[Dave Ellis]

True, only that wasn't what I said.
Read it again.
After the Crucifixion, the Apostles were scattered and in hiding, afraid that they would be next.
3 days later, they basically told the Jewish leaders where to shove their objections, and proclaimed the Gospel from the streets, rooftops, and in the Temple. Something changed in those three days.
How did a bunch of scattered and scared fishermen and workers go from hiding in fear, to standing up for the message even to the point of martyrdom (which became the fate of all except the Apostle John).
Especially since the Jewish leaders could easily have crushed the message from the beginning by opening the tomb in front of everyone and displaying the dead, rotting body of Jesus. They didn't.

And how do you know that these events ever actually occurred? There is no evidence anything changed within three days. In fact the earliest mention of Christianity in Roman Records or by contemporary historians come from around the time the NT was written in the late 1st/early 2nd centuries.

Also, the bolded part is part of the "Poor stupid ancients, so much dumber than us. Man, you could tell them ANYTHING and they'd believe it"-narrative....which is, itself, ridiculous.

It's not a matter of ancients being stupid, however they were uneducated. Likewise, seeing as life expectancy in those days was 25-30 years, 2-3 generations passed between the time of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament. They had no way to verify what they were being told was true.

Only, there wasn't enough time between the life of Christ and the penning of the NT for those kinds of legends to happen. And anyone who knows anything about legends and how they form, will tell you this. Paul's letters are from the late 40s to the early 60s. Eyewitnesses to the events were still alive.

Sure there was. Folk legends pop up about people extraordinarily fast, people exaggerate claims all the time. That is especially true in an era where most stories were told by word of mouth.

Even if Paul's letters date from that time frame, that's still decades after the death of Jesus. That's an incredible amount of time for legends to spread about the character of Jesus.

Paul didn't meet Jesus in person. Neither did Luke, probably. Peter, John, Matthew, on the other hand, most certainly DID. The author of Hebrews is unknown, with much pointing towards Barnabas.

The Authors of the Gospels are unknown. If you are actually a theologian, you must be aware of that. Many Bibles are even printed with disclaimers these days stating that fact.

You can't make the claim any of these people met Jesus in person, because we have no idea who they are. Given the dates that the books were written and the life expectancy in those days, it's very unlikely however that they did meet him, as Jesus would have been dead long before the authors were born. The dates simply don't line up.

Heh. Just your luck to try to pull that stunt with a theologian, who knows that there is no such consensus that you claim.
Sure, liberal scholars prefer to explain away everything, but they haven't got ground to stand on in doing so. Furthermore, there are also conservative scholars, and these take a decidedly different viewpoint.

Ok, let me edit my statement:

The Christian Biblical Scholars who have have evidence to support their case agree that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death and the authors never met him.

The Christian Biblical Scholars who have no evidence to support their claims disagree.

Yes it is, when you know the context in which the NT came into being. The vast majority (not all!) of the books of the NT are decidedly Jewish, written by Jews in a Jewish context, with Jewish concerns. It is wholly unthinkable for Jews to just toss in some elements of paganism into the narrative, and you'd know this if you had the first clue about oral cultures like 1st century Judaism.

And yet the idea of hell/eternal damnation, which does not exist in Judaism was adapted from other middle eastern religions of the time, as one example off the top of my head.

There is a reason why Judaism did not buy into the messages the young Christian Church was espousing. It's because it conflicted with Jewish teachings.

Judaism and Christianity did slowly drift apart, however stating that Christianity didn't pick up and assimilate concepts from other religions simply shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

Not if they made up the story, as you claim.

Correct, however if they heard the story via word of mouth, of a saviour who would rescue the Jews in a time of great political/social turmoil (the Roman Occupation)... They might have actually believed it. Legends can easily grow from that point on.

 

[bricklayer]

Hypothetically-If you were given a proof that religion was false, would you abandon it?

The above is an excellent example of begging.
The question begs the answer.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The above is an excellent example of begging.
The question begs the answer.

Not really... There's a number of examples I know of religious people who have been shown their beliefs are not correct, yet still decide to believe based on faith.

A better way of stating that post would have been: "Do you actually care about what is true and false, or are you going to continue believing in something unsupported despite all evidence to the contrary".

 

[LionofJudahDK]

And how do you know that these events ever actually occurred?

How do you know that anything before the invention of photography occured? That's right: Written accounts.

In fact the earliest mention of Christianity in Roman Records or by contemporary historians come from around the time the NT was written in the late 1st/early 2nd centuries.

Which proves absolutely nothing, as Christianity wasn't really all that interesting to Rome in its own right. Only when it began to become a nuisance because of the conflict with "mainstream Judaism" (though to speak of Judaism as if it was ONE religion at the time is a gross anachronism) did Rome have an interest. Until then, and even some time after, it was taken to be a Jewish sect, and therefore an internal matter of Jewish theology.
Read the book of Acts. Although we do not, to my knowledge, have the letter from Claudius Lysias (Acts 23) transmitted in extra-biblical sources, it reads pretty much, to my knowledge, like other official letters we have from the period. No, that doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is true, but it DOES mean, along with the, for readers at the time of penning, verifiable conditions, events and people described, that Luke (a historian) didn't just invent a tall tale, nor was he content to pass on hearsay. He takes great care to place the events he's describing in historical context, not legendary ("Long ago, in a land far away"), or in the form of parables ("There was a man who...").

It's not a matter of ancients being stupid, however they were uneducated.

Another prejudice used to hide behind. How very predictable.
No, they didn't have much knowledge about nuclear physics. Nor is that relevant. They DID know when someone was trying to lie to them, and to know legend from historical accounts.
The Book of Acts, and the Gospel (at least the Synoptical gospels.....John has more of a theological point than a historical one), thoroughly reads as historical accounts, claiming certain events took place at certain times and in certain places, making efforts to make this verifiable to its readers. Legends do not do this.

Likewise, seeing as life expectancy in those days was 25-30 years,

Source of this? AFAIK, we need to go back to the late Bronze Age before life expectancy is this low.
For sure, the life-expectancy wasn't at our modern level at all. But most people didn't go die off in their 20s, except, of course, from disease or work-accidents.
And that's another thing that's often overlooked: Life-expectancy is not always (or even often) adjusted for these factors (disease, accidents, etc) regarding ancient times (because we don't have sufficient data to do so). Therefore, in an era of high infant- and child mortality, high-risk labors, etc, these early deaths are going to pull the average down quite a bit.

2-3 generations passed between the time of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.

No. From the death of Christ in 33 A.D, to the writing of the first of Paul's letters...there were maybe 15-17 years. Not that it really matters all that much, though, because:

Sure there was. Folk legends pop up about people extraordinarily fast, people exaggerate claims all the time. That is especially true in an era where most stories were told by word of mouth.

THIS is bovine manure, and it shows that you don't know the first thing about Jewish culture at the time. This isn't just an ancient version of the telephone-game, where you end up with something completely different from what was said, even though modern sceptics like to play that card.
This was a culture in which the founding stories of the community were transmitted with such dilligence that the thought of someone going "LOLWUT, I'm totally gonna put this stuff in for the lulz" is ridiculous. It was a culture, in which the disciples of a Rabbi would learn every. single. word. of his teachings by heart. I'm not talking about Jesus now, but any rabbi at the time. This is how teaching was passed on: By meticulous memorization.

Even if Paul's letters date from that time frame, that's still decades after the death of Jesus. That's an incredible amount of time for legends to spread about the character of Jesus.

See above.

The Authors of the Gospels are unknown.

According to liberal scholars, basing this opinion pretty much completely on 19th century sceptics, and their spiritual successors in the early-mid 20th (Bultmann most infamously).

If you are actually a theologian, you must be aware of that.

LOL - Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't just say: "You're not a theologian if you dare to call the liberals' bluff".
The liberal scholars aren't all there is. And if you knew anything about theological scholarship, you'd be aware of this.

You can't make the claim any of these people met Jesus in person, because we have no idea who they are.

Yes, we've got a pretty good idea about who most of them were. John, Matthew and Peter were Apostles. As was Paul (although not one of the 12). The author of Hebrews is unknown, but a good case can be made for Barnabas.

Given the dates that the books were written and the life expectancy in those days, it's very unlikely however that they did meet him, as Jesus would have been dead long before the authors were born. The dates simply don't line up.

A classical mistake: "Average life expectancy is this, therefore everyone reached this age, nothing more". Clearly nonsensical, as "average" by definition implies that some were older.
It's akin to saying: The life-expectancy of a Japanese man is 79 years, therefore Japanese people claiming to be 100 are clearly mistaken. It's ridiculous.
Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Let's say that the Apostles, with John as the exception, as he was younger, were born around the same time as Christ was. That means, that they'd have been in the middle of their 30s by 33 A.D. The Synoptic Gospels cannot (due to internal criteria) be written later than the early 60s*. That means, that Peter, Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc, would have been in their early-mid 60s when they were martyred.
A relatively high age for the time, yes, but by no means impossible, or even very unlikely. It would be akin to a Japanese man turning 90, not a Zimbabwean turning 200.

The Christian Biblical Scholars who have have evidence to support their case agree that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death and the authors never met him.

Correction: Liberal scholars claim this, without much evidence at all.
No one has argued against that the Gospels were written "decades" after Jesus' death. I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the Synoptic Gospels being penned down in the early 60s, shortly before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference in ancient Jewish culture.

The Christian Biblical Scholars who have no evidence to support their claims disagree.

False. You're just throwing the word "no evidence", and "evidence" around as it suits you, without knowing what you're talking about.
Pretty much like someone who isn't a doctor saying: "Eat lots of twinkies - all those who have evidence to support their claims say it's healthy".

And yet the idea of hell/eternal damnation, which does not exist in Judaism

Correction: Which plays a very small role in modern mainstream Judaism. Not relevant to the NT, as modern Judaism has very much evolved in opposition to Christianity (as well as the other way around).

was adapted from other middle eastern religions of the time, as one example off the top of my head.

Then please stick your head in deeper, and see if you can come up with any kind of proof" of this that isn't a post-hoc.

There is a reason why Judaism did not buy into the messages the young Christian Church was espousing. It's because it conflicted with Jewish teachings.

Which Judaism are you talking about? The practice of the Sadducees? That of the Pharisees? Of the Essenes?
For sure, it didn't go well with the sadducees who claimed that there was no afterlife, and that spirits pretty much didn't exist...and, if memory serves, that only the Torah was binding, not the rest of the Tanach. But the sadducees were NOT = "Judaism". The Pharisees were very much on a different level, and claimed that there WAS an afterlife, and the spirits DID exist.
The first Christians did bear many resemblances to the more "liberal" pharisaic school of Rabbi Hillel, and it has even been suggested that Jesus identified with this school. I would NOT go that far, but it is clear that there are many similarities and only a few exceptions (the one I can think of right now, being the general prohibition against divorce and re-marraige after divorce, where Jesus supports the position of Rabbi Shammai).

Judaism and Christianity did slowly drift apart, however stating that Christianity didn't pick up and assimilate concepts from other religions simply shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

No, it shows that I don't buy into the narrative of the liberal scholars. Sorry to burst your bubble, but those two are not the same.
Furthermore, I do not remember saying anything about not being influenced by Judaism. Christianity most certainly WAS influenced by Judaism, in terms of practise, liturgy (all y'all "just do whatever you feel like man"-pentecostals: That one's for you), etc. But to say that central Christian teachings (such as the Incarnation (of which there is NO parallel) , death and Ressurection of Christ, Jesus' institution of Holy Communion, the salvific value of baptism (no, it is NOT = mikveh baths, which had to do with ritual purity, and that isn't what the NT speaks of concerning Baptism), etc, are adaptations from paganism is to display a limitless ignorance of not only Christianity, but Greco-Roman paganism as well.

Correct, however if they heard the story via word of mouth, of a saviour who would rescue the Jews in a time of great political/social turmoil (the Roman Occupation)... They might have actually believed it. Legends can easily grow from that point on.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....
We have no real reason to dispute the self-testimony of the four Gospels concerning their authorship (and the ECFs should know: They had a MASSIVE clusterf... of an argument about those issues, quite early on).









* The Synoptic Gospels are almost universally thought to be from roughly the same time. Luke-Acts is ONE work, and since Acts mentions the martyrdom of a relatively "unimportant" martyr, Stephen, but not that of the leaders Peter and Paul (early 60s), nor the destruction of the Temple (70), which would have been OBVIOUS to include, had it occured), we can conclude that the Synoptic Gospels cannot be later than early 60s.

 

[bricklayer]

Not really... There's a number of examples I know of religious people who have been shown their beliefs are not correct, yet still decide to believe based on faith.

A better way of stating that post would have been: "Do you actually care about what is true and false, or are you going to continue believing in something unsupported despite all evidence to the contrary".

You misunderstand. I do not contend that the question proffered has no accommodation for the answer you gave; it simply has no accommodation for any other answer. Thus, the question begs a particular answer.

 

[Elioenai26]

By your posts, it is evident to me that you have a case that you no doubt believe is very strong as to why Christianity is not be taken as the One true religion and only path to God.

I would like to extend a cordial, warmhearted invitation to debate you on whatever topic you choose and in whatever format you would like to go by.

I feel it is better for us to engage in discussion via formal debate in a designated thread than to do so in scattered posts in threads that may or may not be pertinent to what we would like to discuss. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[madaz]

By your posts, it is evident to me that you have a case that you no doubt believe is very strong as to why Christianity is not be taken as the One true religion and only path to God.

I do not believe "I have a case" as such. There are some 3000 deities last time I checked, if in the unlikely event that deities do indeed exist, I see no convincing reason why any single one of them would have the monopoly over any of the other ones.

I would like to extend a cordial, warmhearted invitation to debate you on whatever topic you choose and in whatever format you would like to go by.

That is off topic and would have been more appropriate as a private message would you think? Anyway, what would a debate with you achieve? I was a christian for over 3 decades, I dont believe you have anything new to convince me in your god.
Anyway I warmheartedly accepted your offer and detailed the format and arena, and you declined due to wanting your CF audience.

I feel it is better for us to engage in discussion via formal debate<snip>

I will give you the benefit of the doubt sir, however your track record in an informal setting doesnt inspire much confidence I'm sorry. (No offence intended) Anyway tell me why it would be better to "engage in discussion via formal debate" What would that achieve?

<snip>in a designated thread than to do so in scattered posts in threads that may or may not be pertinent to what we would like to discuss. I look forward to hearing from you.

The topic is what we are here to discuss, anyway, like I clearly stated in your thread the netiquette here at CF has double standards.

See below.

Christians

1. Discussions with non Christians must be respectful keeping in mind that just because someone has not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and savior does not mean that the Lord won't draw him/her at a later time. (Col 4:2-6)

2. Christians are stewards of Christ and His word and as such it is expected that all non Christians be treated respectfully by speaking the truth in love (1 Peter 3:15).

3. Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard given that this is a Christian site. Non Christians, lurkers, the weak of faith, etc. do read your posts which means that the impression you give is what they see.




Non Christians

1. Keep in mind that this IS a Christian website and as such CF reserves the right to choose what content is appropriate.

2. All discussions with the intent of belittling or mocking Christians or Christianity will be promptly removed.

3. All discussions belittling Christians by calling them mentally inferior, ignorant, bigoted, etc. will be promptly removed.

4. All discussions blaspheming the Christian God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will be promptly removed.







If you believe you have something new to offer me that will almost certainly compel me to become a believer again then I will accept via the medium of a formal debate, on an even playing field, now that would not be an unreasonable request would it?

I'll be waiting for you here http://atheistfoundation.org.au/


Kind regards madaz ahura.

 

[madaz]

The above is an excellent example of begging.
The question begs the answer.

Begging? I'm sorry I do not understand.

You can answer yes, you can answer no, the choice is up to you I'm not begging you to answer.