A New Look At God...
Fat_Man_Little_Coat
Join Date: 2003-12-02 Member: 23857Members
Join Date: 2003-12-02 Member: 23857Members
Often we hear about Creationism and Evolution.
Hardly, if ever have I heard of Theistic Evolution or what I call the God instinct.
Theistic Evolution believes in evolution, but God was behind it. That the bible (Genesis) does talk about the beginning but it is largely symbolic and not literal. The reasoning is that for the same reasons you don't tell a 10 year old child about DNA, zygotes (they don't really care, and can't really understand it) God didn't see a reason to tell us about quantum physics or general relativity (or String Theory for that matter).
In the same way that we tell them about the "birds and the bees" God gave us the Adam and Eve etc. A good book to read that further details this to a small degree (the symbolism of Caine and Abel) and then expands even further: "Ishmael" by Quinn
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553375407/qid=1109056022/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6122670-6596147?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books</a>
Another view of this is the idea of no God, but a God instinct that developed:
This person explains it pretty nicely:
<a href='http://comedy.home.att.net/evolving.html' target='_blank'>http://comedy.home.att.net/evolving.html</a>
Now, granted, they still argue whether God does or doesn't exist, but gives us options to the ideas of evolution vs creationism, even though they are rooted in those ideas to a degree.
Hardly, if ever have I heard of Theistic Evolution or what I call the God instinct.
Theistic Evolution believes in evolution, but God was behind it. That the bible (Genesis) does talk about the beginning but it is largely symbolic and not literal. The reasoning is that for the same reasons you don't tell a 10 year old child about DNA, zygotes (they don't really care, and can't really understand it) God didn't see a reason to tell us about quantum physics or general relativity (or String Theory for that matter).
In the same way that we tell them about the "birds and the bees" God gave us the Adam and Eve etc. A good book to read that further details this to a small degree (the symbolism of Caine and Abel) and then expands even further: "Ishmael" by Quinn
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553375407/qid=1109056022/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6122670-6596147?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books</a>
Another view of this is the idea of no God, but a God instinct that developed:
This person explains it pretty nicely:
<a href='http://comedy.home.att.net/evolving.html' target='_blank'>http://comedy.home.att.net/evolving.html</a>
Now, granted, they still argue whether God does or doesn't exist, but gives us options to the ideas of evolution vs creationism, even though they are rooted in those ideas to a degree.
Comments
Regarding the OP, I'd say that a lot of people believe in both God and accept the fact that Evolution is a fact (in the common vernacular sense it is; in the scientific sense it is a theory, but it is so well established that the layman should regard it as a fact unless he seriously works with evolution in his every day life). They don't really have much to argue about, however. It's mostly the irrational biblical literalists and godless evolutionalists that are arguing, especially since this is being debated in regards to the American educational system.
Tru dat.
Zing
He's cooking something up I assure you.
But are you most Christians? ;P
But are you most Christians? ;P <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good one <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In that case, can anyone be "most Christians" if all are just "a Christian".
And is he slaming the Christians, the south, or Christians from the south?
the plot thickens...
But are you most Christians? ;P <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the US is Christian, the evangelical Christains seem to be most vocal in southern states. I was in fact to meet creationist when I came to college, because, just from a simple idea, I thought that the Earth being spontaneously created by an omnipotent being would be too obvious for such a being. Anyone searching for a literal translation of the <s>b</s>Bible is already asking for trouble, since translations down from Latin will have already corrupted the "thou shalt not change the bible, lest ye be smoten" or whatever.
I try to think, if I were created in God's image, God would think something like me (which obviously can't be true, since everyone thinks different), but my mind is very good at filtering out crap, so I figure it's gotta be pretty close.
[Note that UltimaGecko has only the smallest visages of Christian beliefs. (I'm like Japanese Shintobuddhaanity, I take from all religions and figure out how it should be <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )]
[edit: A note for many people who have dropped into this thread: If your response consists of one line - no matter what it says - it's wrong; articulate your thoughts and make sure they have a point.]
But are you most Christians? ;P <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the US is Christian, the evangelical Christains seem to be most vocal in southern states. I was in fact to meet creationist when I came to college, because, just from a simple idea, I thought that the Earth being spontaneously created by an omnipotent being would be too obvious for such a being. Anyone searching for a literal translation of the <s>b</s>Bible is already asking for trouble, since translations down from Latin will have already corrupted the "thou shalt not change the bible, lest ye be smoten" or whatever.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even the Latin was a translation from Hebrew (at least for the OT). I can't recall what the original language of the NT was, but Greek or Hebrew come to mind.
As for the vocal literalists coming from the south... I don't know. I run into them everywhere, even up north here. This certainly isn't true of the forum members:
Wheeee: Colorado
Marine01: Australia
Pepe: Minestota
AvengerX: Utah
I disagree that it's wrong, as it is possible to make a point in one line.
I disagree that it's wrong, as it is possible to make a point in one line.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, but that's two independent thoughts, seperated by a comma - so it could be two sentences if you wanted it to be. If you want to be all technical, though, responses should really be a point and at least some form of supporting evidence. For example:
I would guess it was first written in a dialect of Greek (whose specific name evades me), since...
The spoken language of Palestine during Jesus of Nazareth's life was a dialect of Greek (and possibly some Latin from foreign officials), however, it's very likely Peter spoke Latin, so he might have written it in Latin (and since he's the 'cornerstone' of the church, you'd probably want to rely on his linguistic capabilities a bit more). I can't vouge for the individuals like Matthew or John, since I don't know their expressed histories (if they were Jewish, they might write in Hebrew - even if it's not a dominant language). Plus I don't have a Bible around (mine was cool because it attempted to put a historical perspective before each chapter giving the book's writer and timeframe and other information - then again, it's been sitting in my closet for about 5 years).
However:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
AvengerX is from Utah? Why am I not surprised. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (despite it's more than one sentence)
or
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tru dat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (which contains no grammarically correct English words <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
helps nothing.
Setting the science of evolution / creation asside (hashing that all day will get us no-where) the "doctrinal" reason for a rejection of theistic evolution has a lot going for it.
When reading this, understand that it is an argument happening in the Church - therefore, the language used is acceptable between two supposed "Christians" - and the expectation there is that we are striving for what God wants - not what we want.
With that in mind, theistic evolution contains many damaging elements. The chiefest of these is that it outright rejects a litteral interpretation of the Bible.
This is why that is damaging. Where do you draw the line? If God was speaking in hyperbole or poetic fassion when he created the world, is the same true for Jesus dying on the Cross and being resurrected for our sins? Both are miracles - both require faith to believe - yet you can't be a "christian" without believing the second.
To put it another way, if you destroy God's credability in one part of his Holy Word, at which point is it restored? What about Homosexuality, and Abortion rights - or other religions - is being a "good person" enough? If God was just trying to make a point when he said "I created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th" - was Jesus just trying to make a point when he said "I am the way, the truth, and the life - No one gets to the father but through me."
Now, I'm not blaming theistic evolution - I'm blaming the mindset. That is what causes decay in the Church. That is what causes deviation from the Word of God. Soon the Bible becomes nothing more than a good book - while its intention was to be Gods revalation to man.
Now for the non-Christians reading this, I understand that this won't make a lot of sence - but these topics are things that the Universal Church (every christian) deal with on a day to day basis. Congregations split over these matters. They provide a framework for church discipline, and what is right and acceptable. Can my church have a homosexual pastor or a paster living with his girlfriend? - No... Not because I say so (or the congregation) but because the Bible says so.
I hope that helps all of you understand where I am coming from.
For homosexuality, he smited Soddam and Gamorra, pretty clear example of his distaste towards that lifestyle. (*NOTE: Not here to argue this quote or homosexuality, just making a ponit that when God wants a line drawn its clear) <a href='http://www.bible.com/answers/ahomosex.html' target='_blank'>http://www.bible.com/answers/ahomosex.html</a>
The ten commandments are also another pretty good example.
As far as symbolism goes, I think God is all about symbolism.
Jesus himself used parables repeatedly. And theres Revelations, try taking that literally.
God's credibility remains fully intact.
Again, if a child asks about conception you don't pull out your charts on genetics, zygotes and the human reproductive system. You tell them about the birds and the bees. Why? Because the child has really no idea of what questions they're asking.
For that reason, God may have thought: "Hmm, these guys just learned how to make clothing out of animal skins, should I teach them about sub-atomic particles, black holes and nuclear fusion?"
What I am going to debate is where the literal interpretation ends, and the figurative begins - and I suggest that the Bible does a pretty good job of letting us know which is which.
Now, that brings us to the question of miracles. Did Jesus really feed 5000, or walk on water, or turn water into wine - or did God create the world, lead his people with a pillar of fire / cloud? Or is God a liar (in which case, why hold the Bible in any value).
Now, lets assume (for the sake of argument) that God is not a liar, and that he is powerful, and that he can do miracles. Can we not then also assume that He is powerful enough to preserve his word (the Bible) exactly as he would like it preserved? - Such that not one word is incorrect? Can we not assume that He <b>did</b> in fact do miracles.
The way I see it, we either make those assumptions - or we are not christians. It is a matter of authority - conventional wisdom, or Biblical. The Bible claims itself to be above conventional wisdom. It does not want to be a smorgas board of pick and choose belief - it claims to be an all or nothing package because it is an all or nothing package.
That is why I argue for a literal interpretation (except where it is specifically figurative). The creation is poetic - not figurative. Rules concerning homosexuals, women in leadership, apropriate pre-marital relationships, miracles - those are literal and are to be believed and trusted. Concerning the book of Revalation - it is symbolic in some areas - though various literal events (symbolized) will take place.
Questions? comments?
Questions? comments? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I take it you believe in the Rapture?
<a href='http://www.raptureletters.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.raptureletters.com/</a>
I signed myself up, just for fun. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
St. Jerome (345-420AD) was a monk from Antioch, who was interested in Greco-Roman literature; he eventually learned to speak Latin and Hebrew (his first language being the Greek dialect I referred to above). From the years prior to St. Jerome numerous biblical translations had been made - but many were incomplete or poorly translated; which lead him to create the first complete translation (which was basically accepted in totality) of the bible from Hebrew and Greek to Latin. This bible became known as the 'Vulgate Bible'.
[There's also some information about him having dreams from God about being to Cicero-ian and moving to Bethlehem and stuff.]
I feel the problems we presently find in Christianity aren't really a product of the religion itself, but of how the church has developed over the years. God has become the theist, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Which wasn't even a completely accepted view back in the 300-400s. There were beliefs like Arianism which says that Jesus must be less powerful than God because Jesus must be younger and must be created by God; Donastism, which says that people who deny the faith are actually heretics and shouldn't be in the clergy (which is eventually voted down by various bishops in seperate councils in Rome and Constantinople); Manichaeism (could be considered more Pagan than Christian) in which Good and Evil are equally powerful (meaning God really can't do anything about Satan); Neoplatonism where evil doesn't really exist, it's only the absence of good. Many debates were about the nature and relation of various parts of God; and 'the Trinity' wasn't always an accepted part of Christianity. I find it a bit strange that seperate bishops in different parts of the Roman empire eventually decided in different religious aspects - so you eventually get Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism (and another that died out quickly after the rise of Islam) as the main groups of religion based on who had power - the bishop of Rome or the bishop of Constantinople (the new capital of the Roman empire; later to be the Byzantine Empire).
In those respects, you could argue various things; that God doesn't really have contact with humans any more; that all that stuff is BS, since God wouldn't want a couple bishops directing a religion.
Personally, I believe in a Enlightenment Age (...pffft, self titled weirdos <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) 'clockwork' God, who always exists and will always exist, that set up the world (say, putting every atom where he wanted it to go), and then let's the universe go to its own devices (but since he's all-knowing, the aspect of free-will applies to us, but not to him, since although he doesn't directly control actions he knows what will happen).
I like to explain this problem with the Futurama episode where Bender becomes a sort of God to the little beings growing on his body. If you give the people to much, they begin to rely on you and can't do anything for themselves (ie: if you give people technology they wont really learn anything), and if you don't do anything no one will know you're there; and at the end of the episode the 'god-galaxy' says "If you do things right, people wont know you're doing anything at all...".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is why I argue for a literal interpretation (except where it is specifically figurative). The creation is poetic - not figurative. Rules concerning homosexuals, women in leadership, apropriate pre-marital relationships, miracles - those are literal and are to be believed and trusted. Concerning the book of Revalation - it is symbolic in some areas - though various literal events (symbolized) will take place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't deny accepting the words of the New Testament as literal. The Old Testament on the other hand...
From what I've gathered, the early books of the Bible (Genesis-Exodus) were written down by Moses, who recorded these books based of the accounts of elders in his camp, who in turn had their history of God passed down from earlier. These were not written records: they were passed down orally, and as such, much can get lost along the way. Nevertheless, by the time these stories are finally jotted down by Moses, they are no longer direct eyewitnesses to account for the events written. I really feel that these much of the ‘history’ written in the early OT books are strongly entwined with myth, that although has symbolic significance in representing God, should not fully be taken as <i>literally</i>. Rather it should be taken as <i>literarily</i>.
I guess I can’t help it, but some of the things listed in the OT are just so utterly... fantastic! I think that what makes the New Testament inferior is just how real and practical it is in opposition to the Old Testament. I'm still trying to come to grips with the OT, but here’s just some stuff that come to boggle my mind:
1. Okay, assuming the story of creation is true, that means that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans responsible for populating the entire world. Initially, I couldn’t help but wonder the fudging load of incest that had to occur for our population to grow. (Maybe that’s why people were so sinful those days… they were mentally whacked). But having studied history myself, I’m starting to be amazed at just how much incest there has been among several cultures in history; Egyptian royal family, Austrian royal family, Japanese imperial family, etc. Abraham, the founder of the Israelites was himself wed to his half-sister. It’s no wonder sin is hereditary… we’re all descendants of incestuous by-products! Huzzah!
(I still believe God was still directly involved in our development in a divine way – I don’t believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve, or our ascension from apes If I did believe in our evolution from apes, there had to be something that changed us to be different from other animals, like the monolithic stone ala Space Odyssey: 2001. Something supernatural definitely made us what we are.)
But then, maybe the incest might not have been THAT bad, because apparently there were these fallen angels known as the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4), who were around for humans to copulate with. Incest problem solved! God for a brief period of time in human history allows fallen-angels to copulate with humans, forming the fallen-angel-human hybrids!
Oh no… wait. Forgot about the flood. Down ONLY to three families, all descended from Noah. Oh well, as human history has shown, incest isn’t THAT bad. Why God eventually declared it a sin? Who knows… maybe because the defects were REALLY getting out of hand.
Speaking of Noah…
2. Animals. Two of each to a boat, except for certain herbivores, of which they get a seven pairs. <b>Globally</b>. Right…What I want to know is how there is such a huge species diversity gap between Middle East-Europe to Australia to the Americas. After the animals got off the boat… did some of them just swim miles to reach a new continent? Or did God just pick up some polar bears with some divine tweezers and plop them off on Canada?
From what I’ve been told from high school biology class, there was a very large flood quite a while ago, but this flood was regional, only around the Middle East/Asian area. I find myself inclined to this idea. Not saying that the story of the ark is complete nonsense, just that I’m sceptical of it being a world-wide flood, and that all the animals in the entire world were kept on that one boat.
3. Time for another edition for Biblical genetics!
Genesis 30: 32-39
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen."
"Agreed," said Laban. "Let it be as you have said." That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban's flocks.
Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember folks! Having sex in front of certain tree branches WILL effect your child’s complexion.
Don’t drink and drive.
4. Genesis: 32: 22-30 – Not a complaint of logic, but how exactly is God not able to overpower A MORTAL. Did he intentionally feign a draw for his WWE tussle with Jacob so he could find an excuse to crown him the new heavyweight champion (aka Israel).
One thing I couldn’t let go of:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->women in leadership<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I’ve learned at church, there’s a historical significance as to why Paul had an issue with the whole “women shouldn’t talk in church”. I can’t remember which church his letter was directed at (Corinth?), but apparently, the women at that church were initially given the freedom to say their fill at church. Only problem was that they went overboard and started mouthing crap that was disrupting services. Paul’s letter was just a message for them to shut up. I think the letter should be taken into context to what was going on at church, and thus, it shouldn’t be treated as universal law. My same opinion goes with women in leadership.
That’s all I can think of right now… moving on to more off-topic happiness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> St. Jerome (345-420AD) was a monk from Antioch, who was interested in Greco-Roman literature; he eventually learned to speak Latin and Hebrew (his first language being the Greek dialect I referred to above). From the years prior to St. Jerome numerous biblical translations had been made - but many were incomplete or poorly translated; which lead him to create the first complete translation (which was basically accepted in totality) of the bible from Hebrew and Greek to Latin. This bible became known as the 'Vulgate Bible'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anyone has a link, can anyone direct me to the exact errors pointed out in the Vulgate by Lorenzo Valla? He’s a figure from the Renaissance, which during that time, rejected the principle of scholasticism. He studied Latin and realized some errors in the Vulgate… I’m wondering just how bad those errors were in detracting from God’s message.
On a more unrelated note, I’m starting to wonder why Protestant Bibles have a few books lopped out from the Catholic one…
If anyone’s interested in church history, I highly recommend that you guys take a look <a href='http://www.ritchies.net/churchhi.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism (and another that died out quickly after the rise of Islam)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coptic or Nestorian?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I believe in a Enlightenment Age (...pffft, self titled weirdos ) 'clockwork' God, who always exists and will always exist, that set up the world (say, putting every atom where he wanted it to go), and then let's the universe go to its own devices (but since he's all-knowing, the aspect of free-will applies to us, but not to him, since although he doesn't directly control actions he knows what will happen).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Deism!
<i>(The last two statements consisted me being an arsehole and flaunting unnecessary vocabulary. Eat Kellogs before I bite off your epidermis!)</i>
As ...iconoclastic (pffft, as close as I can think of) as this will sound, I think about the way the world works in the manner that "If God created me, I must think like God" (as I've pointed out in some other thread, it doesn't really work since everyone thinks differently), so if I really wanted to impress someone and have them take my 10 rules seriously I wouldn't appear as a burning bush or a frozen pizza pocket or a piece of bread. I'd be a pillar of fire (Biblical impression of God with the Israelites near the Red Sea), imposing cloud image (Constantine's conversion at Milvian bridge).
If you're really interested in biblical takes on history, I suggest taking Ancient History classes when you get to college; because you'll learn a lot about how skewed the Old Testament can be towards actual acts of History, or how they're integrated into the Bible - especially Genesis compared against the Enuma Elish of Sumerian and Babylonian culture.
I've found a translation comparison between English and Vulgate Latin versions of the bible <a href='http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1' target='_blank'>here</a> (although they seem to contain a lot of books I'm not familiar with).
[I think I might have had a site with that information, Dissiduous Confuzor, but it doesn't seem like it's working now.]
Seeing as the vast majority of Christians are not literalists, it's kinda hard to see how this woul dbe "damaging" to anything other than your own view of things Pepe, which happens to be the minority view.
What if God, if he exists, created humans, which were originally primates, and they evolved in to modern humans from there? Is it so unreasonable to think that maybe God actually looks like a monkey? People are waaaay too obsessed with looks.