Dear Jesus: A letter to Jesus from a nonbeliever

[ImAlwaysRight]

You did, in fact.

At best, that was a biased attempt to cast doubt on the historicity of the biblical Jesus, but said nothing about the larger question of God himself. I say biased, as opposed to a balanced attempt to look at all evidence. Anyone can cherrypick information and organize it into what seems a strong argument, so long as only the evidence that strengthens your case is presented. I'm certain that the point's raised would be a basis for an interesting debate between truly knowledgable historians on the subject. I'm equally certain that in the course of that debate, information would come forth that would cast doubt on the accuracy (and perhaps even the honesty) of that information.

People through out the ages thought the world was flat. Do not fall victim to appealing to popular opinion or tradition.

When I go outside, the world still looks flat to me and to everyone else. If I presumed at the outset that anyone who claims to have experience or knowledge that would indicate otherwise is in error or deluded, then surely I would still believe it is flat. The fact that I don't categorically deny the validity of anyone's experience or knowledge the is contrary to my position is hardly "appealing to popular opinion" that the world is round - it just means that I have considered the evidence and believe that it is unlikely that it is in all cases completely wrong. I'm sure there were pigheaded people who still believed it was flat long after the evidence had removed any reasonable doubt because they simply wouldn't listen to contrary evidence.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ImAlwaysRight At best, that was a biased attempt to cast doubt on the historicity of the biblical Jesus, but said nothing about the larger question of God himself.

If Jesus is disproven doesn't that make you, well... Jewish??

I say biased, as opposed to a balanced attempt to look at all evidence.

Well, let's take a look at all the credible evidence we have for Jesus:















































And there it is.

The thread was an attempt to examine what was actually happening in the first and second centuries and what we should have seen had the mythical Jesus existed, but didn't. I also explain the origins of the Jesus myth and why it was perpetuated.

Anyone can cherrypick information and organize it into what seems a strong argument, so long as only the evidence that strengthens your case is presented.

Christianity has been doing that for 1800 years.

I'm certain that the point's raised would be a basis for an interesting debate between truly knowledgable historians on the subject. I'm equally certain that in the course of that debate, information would come forth that would cast doubt on the accuracy (and perhaps even the honesty) of that information.

Well, as a Christian I'd assumed you're researched all that and should be able to instantly provide specific line-item rebuttals. You did research the religion before you joined it, right?

The fact that I don't categorically deny the validity of anyone's experience or knowledge the is contrary to my position is hardly "appealing to popular opinion" that the world is round - it just means that I have considered the evidence and believe that it is unlikely that it is in all cases completely wrong.

Most Christians haven't taken the time to research the claims of their own religion. Christianity claims to tell its followers to "question" it, but this is not the case. Christianity encourages its members to defend it which is quite different.

So, in my letter to Jesus' mythologers, I'd have to congratulate them on their marvelous work of propaganda that convinces perfectly intelligent & rational people that men rising from the dead is "perfectly reasonable" and a detailed explanation of how the religion was contrived is "impossible". It has a lot to do with memes.

[Heehoos]

Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority. Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative. Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent. As such, it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer. Religious faith involves a belief that makes some kind of either an implicit or explicit reference to a transcendent source. The basis for a person's faith usually is understood to come from the authority of revelation. Revelation is either direct, through some kind of direct infusion, or indirect, usually from the testimony of an other. The religious beliefs that are the objects of faith can thus be divided into those what are in fact strictly demonstrable (scienta) and those that inform a believer's virtuous practices (sapientia). Religious faith is of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. The former views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths; the latter more strictly as an act of the will of the religious believer alone. The former includes evidence garnered from the testimony and works of other believers. It is, however, possible to hold a religious belief simply on the basis either of faith alone or of reason alone. Moreover, one can even lack faith in God or deny His existence, but still find solace in the practice of religion.

Source: Faith and Reason [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Faith is not provable by definition. It's a moot point trying to prove one's faith. As the above notes, many people come to faith by way of revalation -- either someone else's testimony of the revelation or a personal experience of it.

Those of us who do have faith may view all of creation as proof of God's existance. How did Life come into being on its own? Not to dispute the Big Bang theory here (that is another conversation that I'm not educated enough to get into), but I heard someone say once that it is as likely for an explosion of random molecules to form sentient life, as it is for an explosion of random letters to form a dictionary.

Others may have more concrete evidence of God in their own lives. My grandmother told me of a time in her life that she saw as an undisputable miracle. She was a young girl of about 7 years old, and she had a terrible stomach illness. Her description of it was a hole in her stomach, but that was probably a 7 year-old's definition of it. All she knew was that she could consume nothing or she would risk dying. A family friend had gone to Lourdes and had brought back some holy water, and asked a doctor if she could give it to my grandmother. The doctor basically said go ahead, she didn't have much time anyway. The next day she was released from the hospital, healthy and whole. For my grandmother, this was indisputable proof of God's intercession in her life. Who am I to dispute it? I, too, have had what I feel are moments of indisputable proof -- at least to me. I experienced them, and I knew exactly what they meant to me.

But none of these are going to change your mind or are going to stand as evidence for you because there were no video recordings, medical records, or documentation about them. They exist only in the realm of human experience.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Well, as a Christian I'd assumed you're researched all that and should be able to instantly provide specific line-item rebuttals. You did research the religion before you joined it, right?

You've assumed wrong. Why would you expect me to have a line-by-line rebuttal for everything you might throw at me before I know what it is? Actually, many of of those objections to the bibilical account of Jesus look familiar. Perhaps I'll do some research and find out how Christian apologists handle them.

You may be a trained historian for all I know, but Googling atheist/skeptic websites to find all the popular arguments against Christianity doesn't make you one. Even if you are, that hardly makes you qualified to attest to the accuracy of the specific information you find unless you've actually researched the specific claims being made using independent historical sources. I'm not saying this was done here, but it wouldn't be the first time someone has misrepresented relatively obscure facts figuring 99 percent of the people would never bother to check those facts. Even the rebuttals to these claims cannot be presumed to be accurate.

Very few people have academic expertise or the time to become an expert on every aspect(pro or con) of a thing before they allow themselves to believe it. To expect that is unrealistic. Indeed, I find it odd that skeptics spend as much time and effort as they do trying to disprove someone else's belief system when, if they are correct and there is no God, other people's belief systems are of no real or lasting consequence.

Remember, for me to believe something, it is me that needs to be convinced - not you. I have no illusions that anything I could say would be so devastating to your disbelief as to change your mind. Anyone who is determined to remain a skeptic or a believer will find no shortage of arguments to support their respective belief. Nobody has complete information, so it really comes down to which arguments you believe - or wish to believe.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ImAlwaysRight That's a very good question. As HeeHoos pointed out, there are obviously biblical reasons for believing that salvation is possible without actual belief in Jesus by name. To the old testament figures he named, I would also add babies. Therefore, it seems to me that the purist belief that nobody is saved that does not profess belief in Jesus by name unnecessarily puts God back in the same box that Jesus's sacrifice was intended get him out of - so to speak. Now, if by "a good person" you mean that you have lived a sinless life, then the bible doesn't shed any light on your question since the bible states that no such person exists. But I doubt that's what you meant to imply. I look at it like this. God created us to live in personal relation with him for eternity. Despite being warned of the consequences, man sinned, effectively disqualifying everyone from eternal life with God - which presented a problem for God who still loves us and wants relationship with us. It would violate his own nature to simply overlook his own law - even for people who sincerely yearn for God. He solved this problem by taking the punishment himself. Therefore, when the Jesus says "nobody comes to the Father but through me", I think he means that it is through him that the law( the wages of sin is death)would be fulfilled - the price(death) would be paid. At that point, our sin is no longer an impediment to allowing the eternal relationships with us that God intended. The ball is now in our court to choose between eternal relationship with God or eternal separation from Him. God will grant our wishes either way. Unlike babies, or the menally retarded or Hindu's who have never heard the Gospel message, it sounds like you have had ample opportunity to contemplate your decision and have consciously chosen to have nothing to do with God. Now, you may think your disbelief is sincerely arrived at through purely rational means. You may be one of those who thinks that if there actually is a judgement, you'll outwit God on the judgment stand by making the case that if he wanted you to believe in him, he should not have made you so rational or should have revealed himself to you more directly. The problem with this defense is that He is just as likely to respond with something like "But I made you didn't I - what more proof did you need". As for those who simply never had the opportunity to know about Jesus, I certainly believe that God will judge them righeously according to what is in their heart - but that this only possible because of what Jesus did.

No, I don't think I arrived at my belief through purely rational means; I have an emotional stake in disbelieving in god, since I consider him to be immoral, by my standards. I can't really speak now to what I would do if I found myself before the throne of judgement after I died, but I like to think that I would deny him to his face, and be happily cast into hell. But perhaps I will throw myself onto my knees and beg forgiveness; I just wonder if I will then be cast into hell anyway.

I have not led a sinless life, of course, but there is little about my life that a Christian would find fault with, I think. But there is one glaring thing: I don't believe. Every proselytizing pamphlet I have read, every would-be missionary I have spoken to (not that there are thousands of these experiences, but nonetheless) has said that, in essence, one needs to both live a good life, and a Christian life, meaning one must worship and one must have faith, in order to be saved. This seems to me to run counter to the professed goals of most Christians I have known, who do honestly want to live good lives and be good people, and who want everyone to do the same. I'm not sure how asking me to think a certain way, to feel a certain way, is really conducive to building a community that is all-inclusive, in which everyone follows the same basic morality. It seems that adding this element of required faith makes that community exclusive and not inclusive, and that does not jibe with the good community ideal. Now, most Christians I have known are not interested in converting me, and are very happy to live and let live, but if it is part of the doctrine that they are good and I am bad, solely because of the differences in our beliefs and not because of our actions or lifestyles, then that seems to put the emphasis on the belief and not on the actions. As I said, that is exclusive, and certainly not the way to build a community of good people. You cannot make some people out to be better than others while claiming that a different aspect is what makes one a "good" person.

At any rate, thank you, and Heehoos, for your answers. I suppose I'll find out when I die. If I can, I'll let you know.:)

[Kuldeep]

C.C, Just relax!
If you sincerely disbelieve something you do not have proof. Your self conscience which it self is a form of God can not offter you eternal hell.

Rather, all those Christains or others belonging to any other religion are not sincere in their beliefs, their own conscience would eternally drop them into hell. No outside Jesus or any other form of God can save them or has a role to play.

"You are everything for you, a friend, enemy or savour. The choice is your as to what you want to make yourself for you by your physical and mental activities and thinking."

This is not my statement but Lord Krishna has said it in Bhagvat Gita. Whether he said or not but the point is the statement seems to be true. After all it is our own behavior, day to day dealings, hard and sincere work and the like, which makes people around as our friends or enemies

No logical and reasonable person would agree that after performing all types of sins just one prayer would save them from going to hell. I would say poor Jesus and God must also be guided by Action/Rection law.

"As you sow so shall you reap". I am tired of writing this factual senrence againand again on various threads while explaining various points of doubts.:(

[Zhavric]

But none of these are going to change your mind or are going to stand as evidence for you because there were no video recordings, medical records, or documentation about them. They exist only in the realm of human experience.

Please don't try to muddy the waters. The thread is about a letter written to Jesus and Jesus of the gospels is demonstrably fictional.

Quote by: ImAlwaysRight You've assumed wrong. Why would you expect me to have a line-by-line rebuttal for everything you might throw at me before I know what it is? Actually, many of of those objections to the bibilical account of Jesus look familiar. Perhaps I'll do some research and find out how Christian apologists handle them.

So, you don't actually want to examine them and try to see if they're true or not. You just want to see what the spin doctors who have a doctrinal axe to grind have to say about them.

Got it.

You may be a trained historian for all I know, but Googling atheist/skeptic websites to find all the popular arguments against Christianity doesn't make you one. Even if you are, that hardly makes you qualified to attest to the accuracy of the specific information you find unless you've actually researched the specific claims being made using independent historical sources.

Ad hominum fallacy. Address the argument, not the person making it. I've never claimed to be an expert on history which is why the Jesus thread I linked to has so many supporting sources.If you'd like, I can find the bit on Athenagoras on a Christian website. Just let me know.

I'm not saying this was done here, but it wouldn't be the first time someone has misrepresented relatively obscure facts figuring 99 percent of the people would never bother to check those facts. Even the rebuttals to these claims cannot be presumed to be accurate.

Stop dodging and address the argument. Or don't... but don't claim it's "defeated" before you've even addressed it.

Very few people have academic expertise or the time to become an expert on every aspect(pro or con) of a thing before they allow themselves to believe it. To expect that is unrealistic.

So, let me get this straight: it's unrealistic to expect people to research things they're going to devote their lives to?

Please.

Indeed, I find it odd that skeptics spend as much time and effort as they do trying to disprove someone else's belief system when, if they are correct and there is no God, other people's belief systems are of no real or lasting consequence.

What I find odd is that most skeptics know more about the bible and its origins than most Christians. Skeptics are willing to look beyond Christian propaganda at other sources and think critically. Most Christians stick with the bible and a handful of faulty sources.

Remember, for me to believe something, it is me that needs to be convinced - not you. I have no illusions that anything I could say would be so devastating to your disbelief as to change your mind. Anyone who is determined to remain a skeptic or a believer will find no shortage of arguments to support their respective belief. Nobody has complete information, so it really comes down to which arguments you believe - or wish to believe.

We don't need "complete information" because we have a little thing called logic. I've explained this far too many times in this thread. Jesus of the gospels never existed. Faith in him is as valid as faith in Santa Clause.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric ...Jesus of the gospels is demonstrably fictional.

On that I agree.

Too much "telephone game" testaments before actually being recorded in a Gospel has probably turned the message of a guy saying, "Stop being such selfish dickheads, chill out, and be nice," into the holy high words of redemption they became today.

[ImAlwaysRight]

So, you don't actually want to examine them and try to see if they're true or not. You just want to see what the spin doctors who have a doctrinal axe to grind have to say about them.

Wrong again. It's just that I've already looked over the arguments of your spin doctors and I'd be interested to see what countervailing evidence, if any, Christian spin doctors might bring to the subject. In fairness, a couple of the sites you linked to appeared to at least attempt to handle the information fairly. However, I've found that there are very few people who deal with subjects like this approach it without a "doctrinal axe to grind" - some are just better at projecting the appearance of scholarly objectivity than others in order to bolster their own credibility.

Ad hominum fallacy. Address the argument, not the person making it. I've never claimed to be an expert on history which is why the Jesus thread I linked to has so many supporting sources.If you'd like, I can find the bit on Athenagoras on a Christian website. Just let me know.

Like I said, most of those sources were just spin doctors from the other side. The reason I pointed out your lack of scholarly expertise in the study of history is not to attack you or even fault you, but to point out that neither of us has the expertise to truly know about, much less evaluate and assimilate in a coherent manner all of the bits of relevant fragmentary evidence so as to reconstruct a conclusively accurate picture of events of the time in question. Such training takes years of study of ancient cultures and languages. Until we recieve such training, we are at the mercy of the spin doctors.

Stop dodging and address the argument. Or don't... but don't claim it's "defeated" before you've even addressed it.

Fair point. But I don't think I've said it is defeated, I just said that I don't believe everything I read - and that it would take a great commitment of time and training to get to the point where I can study the evidence and draw my own independent conclusion. I'm no expert in ancient Greek, and I doubt I'll be one anytime soon. And I'm not going to suspend my belief in God and Jesus every time I read claims made by people whose aim it is to cast doubt on belief in God and Jesus.

So, let me get this straight: it's unrealistic to expect people to research things they're going to devote their lives to?

For all your attempts to "get things straight", you sure get things wrong alot. That was not what I said - it was just another dishonest mischaracterization of what I said. I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic to expect that unless one is enough of a scholar or expert on a subject to be able to refute every possible objection skeptics might throw at him, then he has no business forming any sort of opinion or belief about the subject.

What I find odd is that most skeptics know more about the bible and its origins than most Christians. Skeptics are willing to look beyond Christian propaganda at other sources and think critically. Most Christians stick with the bible and a handful of faulty sources.

I don't know if they know more about the Bible, but they certainly do spend more time than Christians familiarizing themselves with the non-christian propaganda and popular arguments against it. Just because skeptics have this curious obsession with "disproving" the Bible and exposing the "frauds" of other people's religion, you really shouldn't expect believers to be equally obsessed with defending against all the slings and arrows of skeptics. That's not to say we shouldn't seek answers, or research our faith, nor is it to say that no christans do, but the focus of a Christian life is not to go through life proving and reproving one's beliefs. In the abstract, this may seem like an unthinkable cop-out, but that's only because you keep thinking they ought to be as obsessed about proving their faith as you are about disproving it. In reality, it's just that people have limited resources of time and different priorities than you.

We don't need "complete information" because we have a little thing called logic. I've explained this far too many times in this thread. Jesus of the gospels never existed. Faith in him is as valid as faith in Santa Clause.

No, you've merely pointed me toward your own spinners who claim to have "proven" that Jesus of the gospels never existed. Many of their arguments appear logical given the selective information they present. Much of their arguments are mere speculation. "Well if so and so lived at the time surely he would have written about such and such" Even assuming that's a resonable expectation, it is utterly illogical unless we are certain we have found all of the writings of that person and particularly those written during the timeframe in which he would have supposedly written about such and such. Nor is it logical, however convenient it may be to a skeptic, to assume that where the bible and external writings differ, that the external sources must be correct and the bible is wrong.

[xyzer]

Captain..All kidding aside..Do you have a belief system? If you have one is it required for me to believe the tenets of your beliefs system? Would you give me the chance to appraise and criticize those portions I do not agree with by posting the main tenets of your system on this thread?
If I do not agree with your beliefs is it OK for me to denigrate them?Make fun of them? Or is it more civil to just disagree? I'll concede that humans are the only ones capable of inventing religious belief systems therefor their interpretations are subject to human failing?
Like you I'm not an adherent of Christianity and all its splinter factions but unlike you I do not choose to ridicule or otherwise make fun of others beliefs.

Come on...give me a chance to evaluate your system>>>' .

[Zhavric]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about my sources, how they're biased, and why you shouldn't be responsible for knowing about what was actually going on back then.

How about you quit dodging and post to the thread.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: xyzer Captain..All kidding aside..Do you have a belief system? If you have one is it required for me to believe the tenets of your beliefs system? Would you give me the chance to appraise and criticize those portions I do not agree with by posting the main tenets of your system on this thread? If I do not agree with your beliefs is it OK for me to denigrate them?Make fun of them? Or is it more civil to just disagree? I'll concede that humans are the only ones capable of inventing religious belief systems therefor their interpretations are subject to human failing? Like you I'm not an adherent of Christianity and all its splinter factions but unlike you I do not choose to ridicule or otherwise make fun of others beliefs. Come on...give me a chance to evaluate your system>>>' .

That's fine...

But first I must defend myself.

I make fun of everything. This includes religion, sex, myself - you name it.

Secondly - conservative Christianity is a disturbing religion that needs to be made fun of. I find this a useful tool in shocking people out of their religious stupor. It is not that I expect to move others away from their religion entirely (although I have done so). It is that I hope to force people to defend their religion. In doing so, they tend to take a more rational approach to religion in general, which tends to soften the harsh edges of their beliefs.

I have even played a part, in the past, in moving others towards Christian Universalism. I consider that a major accomplishment.

The Christian Right is a pretty damn scary group.

[Stewbert]

I make fun of everything. This includes religion, sex, myself - you name it.

The key to happiness?

[Jack]

but the focus of a Christian life is not to go through life proving and reproving one's beliefs

Yet christians allow their beliefs to color their view of society. They condemn those who don't share their beliefs. They base so many daily decisions on what they believe, it's irresponsible to not have a valid, well thought-out reason for believing what they do.

I don't accept the excuse from racists that they "just don't like Black people, I don't know why". The unconsidered life is a shallow one.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

I think racism stems from fear and insecurity(which is also why we have religion, to soothe our evolved brains that understand that we die someday). We are afraid of chage and things we dont understand. Like the fact that without a body we cant have consciousness. I hate the way that certain religious people gain leverage in their arguments by manipulating their words simply becausethey have good rhetoric.

[Jakob]

If I spent every single moment of my life challenging and answering every single question thrown at me, evey single bit of doubt, I'd spend a lot of time fussing over minute points. There are times where I assume there will be an answer later on (and often times there is), because otherwise I can't move on with my faith.

This is not to say that I believe what I believe without reason. I'm an apolegetic. I believe what I believe because it is to me the most logical belief. When I come up against a question I, at the moment, can not answer, I move on, because the context of the question is such that it fits with the context of my belief. If I later find that that belief is wrong, I will gladly drop it. But I can't expect to spend years of my life on one single point.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Secondly - conservative Christianity is a disturbing religion that needs to be made fun of. I find this a useful tool in shocking people out of their religious stupor. It is not that I expect to move others away from their religion entirely (although I have done so). It is that I hope to force people to defend their religion. In doing so, they tend to take a more rational approach to religion in general, which tends to soften the harsh edges of their beliefs.

I agree with much of your point, except for that first sentence. "Conservative Christianity is a disturbing religion that needs to be made fun of."

Conservative Christianity isn't dangerous, uninformed Christianity is dangerous. Political Christianity is dangerous. Christianity as a mass control device is dangerous.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Stewbert The key to happiness?

Humor is certainly one notch on that key.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Yet christians allow their beliefs to color their view of society....They base so many daily decisions on what they believe, it's irresponsible to not have a valid, well thought-out reason for believing what they do.

I agree, how does that make Christians different from anybody else? And when did I say they shouldn't have a well thought-out reason for their beliefs? All I'm saying is that once they have arrived at their beliefs, most people, (whether christian or otherwise) get on about the business of living, hopefully according to their beliefs. Just because others may have an antagonistic preoccupation with "disproving" Christianity, it doesn't necessarily follow that Christians should or would become equally consumed addressing every objection raised by these skeptics.

There is a time and a place for apologetics, and Christians should not be unfamiliar with the arguments, but the fact that most Christians don't walk around with line by line rebuttals to all the popular "factoid" based skeptic's arguments that are bandied about among armchair historians and philosophers on the internet does not, in my estimation, mean they are being "irresponsible". It just means, like everyone, they have limited time and abilities to devote to the different aspects of their interests.

Skeptics are merely appealing to intellectual vanity(possibly a form of bullying) when they insinuate that unless Christians are armed with ready made rebuttals to any arguments a skeptic may throw at them, the only intellectually respectable alternative response is to be cowed into abandoning their belief. There's nothing intellectual or logical about abandoning one's beliefs because someone with a "doctrinal axe to grind" tells you some spurrious fact for the purpose of casting doubt on your belief. For the most part, the people throwing out these popular arguments are just as lacking in their depth of knowlege and training and are therefore no more equipped to prove the factuality of their regurgitated factoids than most Christians are to refute them.

They condemn those who don't share their beliefs.

Really? I've never noticed myself doing that. It's not even within my power to condemn anyone - certainly not in any tangible manner. If by "condemn" you mean that Christians believe that God allows people to decide whether they want to spend eternity in relationship with Him or separated from Him, then you're correct. But if you are merely imputing blame to Christians for one's own feelings of condemnation or guilt, then I'd say you're just scapegoating.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: AlwaysRight If by "condemn" you mean that Christians believe that God allows people to decide whether they want to spend eternity in relationship with Him or separated from Him, then you're correct.

This is not the right way to view it. In order to make a responsible decision, I must first have all the facts. If I do not believe that Jesus is the savior, then I am not rejecting God when I choose not to worship Jesus.

Disbelief is not a form of rejection.

[Jakob]

Quote by: Captain Chaos This is not the right way to view it. In order to make a responsible decision, I must first have all the facts. If I do not believe that Jesus is the savior, then I am not rejecting God when I choose not to worship Jesus. Disbelief is not a form of rejection.

I certainly agree that one shouldn't make a decision for no reason, and they should be able to defen