Enjoy! by Gary Rose

 

 

I have had enough of anything political; its time I thought of something on the lighter side of life. This picture more than qualifies. Here is someone who is enjoying life in a more light-hearted manner. My guess is that the bike probably belongs to his grand-daughter, but, who knows?

Anyway, life for most of us is but a few decades, so I say, enjoy it the best you can! Then I remembered the wise words of Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes…

Ecclesiastes 5 ( World English Bible )

¹⁸ Behold, that which I have seen to be good and proper is for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy good in all his labor, in which he labors under the sun, all the days of his life which God has given him; for this is his portion.

¹⁹ Every man also to whom God has given riches and wealth, and has given him power to eat of it, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labor—this is the gift of God.

God has given us many blessings. We should from time to time take stock of them and rejoice. Every so often, we sing the following at the Southside, Zephyrhills congregation…

When upon life's billows you are tempest tossed
When you are discouraged, thinking all is lost
Count your many blessings, name them one by one
And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done

Are you ever burdened with a load of care?
Does the cross seem heavy you are called to bear?
Count your many blessings, every doubt will fly
And you will keep singing as the days go by

So, amid the conflict, whether great or small
Do not be disheartened, God is over all
Count your many blessings, angels will attend
Help and comfort give you to your journey's end

Count your blessings, name them one by one
Count your blessings, see what God hath done
Count your blessings, name them one by one
And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done 

 And, just in case you feel like singing….

 Yesterday is but a memory, tomorrow, anything can happen. The only thing we genuinely have is the here and now. I often think of what the Apostle Paul has said…

Philippians 4 ( WEB )

 

Rejoice in the Lord always! Again I will say, “Rejoice!”

Be happy, for God loves us all. Do something today for the pure fun of it.

(riding a pink bike is but one option)

Does God’s Existence Rest Upon Human Consensus? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2767

Does God’s Existence Rest Upon Human Consensus?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Three minutes and 45 seconds into Dan Barker’s opening statement in our Darwin Day debate on February 12, 2009, he presented an argument that he has often used in other debates and writings. In his list of “probability” arguments, he included as his fifth argument against God’s existence the following comments: “There is no agreement among believers as to the nature or the moral principles of this God that they are arguing for. They all differ with each other” (Butt and Barker, 2009). According to Dan, since those professing Christianity come down on either side of moral issues such as abortion, divorce, and the death penalty, then the God Who wrote the Bible “in all probability” does not exist, and the Bible must not be a sufficient guide for human morality.

Is Dan correct in his assessment that disagreement among professed believers nullifies the existence of God? Certainly not! Barker is incorrect for a number of reasons, the majority of which are quite clear after the briefest consideration of the argument. First, we could simply say that Dan’s argument, used against his own brand of atheism, refutes itself, since he admits that atheists do not agree on moral issues. In his book godless, Barker stated: “Most atheists think that values, though not objective things in themselves, can be objectively justified by reference to the real world.... Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that morality exists in the universe” (2008, p. 213-214, emp. added). Notice that Barker qualifies his statement with the word “most,” implying that some atheists do not see morality as he does. In his discussion of human free will, Barker wrote: “By the way, this contributes to my compatibilist position on human free will. (Not that all atheists agree with me.) I am an determinist, which means that I don’t think complete libertarian free will exists.... I admit that my definition of free will is subject to debate” (2008, p. 128, emp. added). If Barker’s statement about disagreement of professed believers is true, we could, with equal force, use it on atheism and say that since there is no agreement among atheists on moral issues, then atheism “in all probability” is false.

Of course, Barker does not want to extend his “truth” criterion to atheism. And his statement is inherently flawed in the first place. If two or more people disagreed on whether the holocaust happened, but they all professed to be honest historians, would their disagreement prove that there never was a holocaust? If two people, who both claim to be honest geographers, disagree on the fact that the continent of North America exists, would that negate its reality? Or if two or more people adamantly disagreed on the idea that Dan Barker exists, would his existence be jeopardized based on their disagreement? No, on every count. Agreement among people cannot be used as evidence of the truth or falsity of any proposition.

Barker’s atheistic colleague, Sam Harris, has eloquently written on this truth. He disagrees with many atheists about ethical questions. In spite of his atheism, he contends that objective right and wrong do exist (an impossible proposition for a true atheist to maintain, by the way). He wrote:

The fact that people of different times and cultures disagree about ethical questions should not trouble us. It suggests nothing at all about the status of moral truth. Imagine what it would be like to consult the finest thinkers of antiquity on questions of basic science: “What,” we might ask, “is fire? And how do living systems reproduce themselves? And what are the various lights we see in the night sky?” We would surely encounter a bewildering lack of consensus on these matters. Even though there was no shortage of brilliant minds in the ancient world, they simply lacked the physical and conceptual tools to answer questions of this sort. Their lack of consensus signified their ignorance of certain physical truths, not that no such truths exist (2004, p. 171, emp. added).

The irony of this quote from Harris is that it manifests the atheistic community’s lack of consensus on ethical issues, which should disprove atheism according to Barker’s line of reasoning. Furthermore, it hammers home the self-evident truth that consensus among professed followers of any concept or entity has no bearing on its existence or its claim to truth. Harris further remarked: “It is quite conceivable that everyone might agree and yet be wrong about the way the world is. It is also conceivable that a single person might be right in the face of unanimous opposition” (2004, pp. 181-182, emp. added).

While it is true that the lack of consensus on moral issues by those who profess Christianity does nothing to discount the existence of God, it is appropriate to ask why such disparity exists. Again, it is ironic that Dan Barker has answered his own question in this regard. In his speech, “How to be Moral Without Religion,” given at the University of Minnesota on October 19, 2006, Barker stated: “A tendency that we all have, we look through our documents to try to find what supports our already prejudice views about what we think morality should be like.” In one succinct sentence, Barker explained why there is a lack of consensus among professed believers on moral issues. It is not because God does not exist. It is not because the Bible is hopelessly confusing and cannot be understood. It is not because there is no objective moral truth. It is simply because humans bring their already prejudiced views to the text of the Bible and try to force it to say what they “think” it should say.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2006), “How to be Moral Without Religion,” [On-line], URL: http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/CASH1.mp3.

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Danger Of Traditions (7:1-13) by Mark Copeland

 

 "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

 The Danger Of Traditions (7:1-13)

 
INTRODUCTION

1. As Jesus went about teaching, He often ran afoul of religious leaders over keeping traditions...
   a. E.g., plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath - Mk 2:23-28
   b. E.g., eating with unwashed hands - Mk 7:1-13

2. In Mk 7:1-13, Jesus describes the danger of traditions at length...
   a. How keeping them can make void the very commands of God
   b. How keeping them can make our worship vain before God

3. Traditions are very important in some religions...
   a. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is placed on par with God's Word
      1) "It is an article of faith from a decree of the Vatican Council
         that Tradition is a source of theological teaching distinct
         from Scripture, and that it is infallible.  It is therefore to
         be received with the same internal assent of Scripture, for it
         is the word of God." - Catholic Dictionary, p. 41-42
      2) "Do you have to believe in Tradition?  Yes, because it is the
         Word of God and has equal authority with the Bible." - Catholic Catechism For Adults, p. 11
   b. Protestant churches have their own traditions
      1) It is often their traditions that distinguish between the denominations
      2) To be a member of a particular denomination, one must accept its traditions

4. In this study, with Mk 7:1-13 as our basic text, we will address the following questions...
   a. What are traditions?
   b. Are traditions always wrong?
   c. If not, when does a tradition become sinful?

[Let's begin with...]

I. THE MEANING OF TRADITION

   A. THE WORD ITSELF...
      1. The Greek word is paradosis, which means "giving over" or "handing down"
      2. It refers to teaching that is handed down either by word (orally) or in writing

   B. AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE JEWS...
      1. It applied to the oral teachings of the elders (distinguished elders from Moses on down)
      2. These traditions were often divided into three classes...
         a. Oral laws supposedly given by Moses in addition to the written laws
         b. Decisions of various judges which became precedents in judicial matters
         c. Interpretations of highly respected rabbis held in reverence along with the OT scriptures
         -- Article on "Tradition", ISBE
      3. Prior to his conversion, Paul was a staunch supporter of Jewish tradition - Ga 1:13-14

   C. AS UNDERSTOOD BY ROMAN AND GREEK CATHOLICS...
      1. Their views appear to be parallel to that of the Jews
      2. What they consider "Tradition" is what they believe to be the teachings:
         a. Of Jesus or the apostles, persevered orally rather than through writing
         b. Of various councils which have left various decrees
         c. Of various church leaders (such as the pope) considered to
            be inspired with later revelations from God
      3. Of course, one is expected to take their word for it that these
         "traditions" were truly from God and have been faithfully transmitted

   D. AS FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES...
      1. The word "tradition" as such is not found in the Old Testament
      2. It is found thirteen (13) times in New Testament
         a. Three (3) times it refers to "apostolic teaching"
            1) That which had been delivered by the apostles - 1Co 11:2
            2) Whether by word (in person) or epistle - 2Th 2:15
            3) Which Christians were expected to keep - 2Th 3:6
         b. Ten (10) times it refers to "the tradition of the elders" or "the traditions of men"
            1) As in our text and parallel passages - Mk 7:3-13; Mt 15:2-6
            2) Of which Paul warned the Colossians - Col 2:8
            3) From which Jewish Christians had been delivered - 1Pe 1:18; Ga 1:14
      3. Jesus did not feel bound to abide by "the traditions of the elders"
         a. Some traditions He had no problem with keeping
            1) Such as going to a wedding feast - Jn 2:1-2
            2) Or attending the Feast Of Dedication - Jn 10:22-23
         b. But He just as easily had no problem with violating other traditions
            1) Plucking grain on the Sabbath - Mk 2:23-28
            2) Eating with unwashed hands - Mk 7:1-5
      4. Evidently Jesus did not subscribe to the view of "traditions" handed down orally
         a. He never appealed to the traditions of the elders
         b. He either appealed to the authority of the written Word (the
            Law of Moses), or to His own authority as the Son of God

[Not all "traditions" are wrong.  If they are teachings of God, "handed
down" by inspired men, they are to be heeded (2Th 2:15).  But if they
are doctrines or interpretations handed down by uninspired men, like the
traditions of the Jews they are suspect.  As we return to our text (Mk 7:1-13), Jesus points out...]

II. THE DANGER OF TRADITIONS OF MEN

   A. THEY CAN LEAD TO HYPOCRITICAL WORSHIP...
      1. Traditions of men tend toward ritualism (just look at the
         rituals found in many religions that have no scriptural basis)
      2. Such ritualism is often done repeatedly, with little thought as to its origin and purpose
      3. It is easy to go through such rituals, with the heart and mind on other things
      4. Worship without the heart (or mind) of man is hypocritical worship! - Mk 7:6

   B. THEY CAN LEAD TO VAIN WORSHIP...
      1. When traditions of men are taught on the same level as the
         commands of God, it leads to vain worship - Mk 7:7
      2. Such worship may appear to be impressive, but it in actually "empty, worthless"
         a. First, because God did not command it
         b. Second, because it does not accomplish the good we really need - cf. Col 2:18-23

   C. THEY CAN MAKE THE WORD OF GOD VOID...
      1. Jesus gave the example of honoring one's parents - Mk 7:10-12
         a. The elders' tradition taught giving to the temple freed one from giving to one's parents
         b. Thus rendering the command of God of no effect
      2. There are traditions of men today with similar affect
         a. Such as the practice of sprinkling for baptism, a tradition of man
         b. When one keeps the tradition of sprinkling, they make the
            command of God to be baptized (immersed) of no effect!
      3. Through such traditions, one is actually rejecting the command of God! - Mk 7:8-9,13

CONCLUSION

1. What are traditions...?
   a. They are simply teachings that have been handed down
   b. In the case of inspired men (like the apostles) given in person or
      through their writings, such traditions are good and to be followed

2. Oral traditions, given through a succession of uninspired men, are at best suspect...
   a. Jesus did not hold traditions orally transmitted through the Jews on par with God's written word
   b. Nor should we hold traditions orally transmitted through men on par with God's written word

3. At worst, traditions of men can be vain and deadly...
   a. When their observance leads one to not keep a command of God
   b. When they are taught as doctrine, on par with God's word
   c. When they lead to ritualism, done without engaging the heart and mind of man

From the words of Jesus, let us beware of "The Danger Of Traditions",
and make sure that our faith and practice is based upon the written Word
of God, not the interpretations and teachings of uninspired men...!

 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Chick-fil-A. Christianity. And Bigotry. by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2018/09/18/chick-fil-a-christianity-and-bigotry/

Chick-fil-A. Christianity. And Bigotry.

How did I miss this insightful essay?

Back in April, the New Yorker published a piece by freelance writer Dan Piepenbring entitled “Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City.” While the article exposes the evils of fast foods, their advertising slogan “Eat Mor Chikin,” and his disapproval of opening their stores in the Big Apple, the writer seems more upset about the values of the founder, the late S. Truett Cathy, his son, Dan, the current CEO, and the conservative culture of the Corporation.

Piepenbring’s essay includes these complaints “The brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism.”

Also “Its headquarters in Atlanta, are adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet.

Furthermore, “Its stores close on Sundays.”

And worse yet “The restaurant’s corporate purpose still begins with the words ‘to glorify God.’”

Really, these are bad things? Promoting service to others, providing an opportunity for your employees to worship on Sunday and giving God the glory, is something to be shunned? And even excoriated?

Of course, the author is upset that their CEO opposes same-sex marriage. And that of course, is a great danger to our Republic.

Now, full disclosure demands my admission to liking Chick-fil-A. I like their sandwiches. Their salads. Their shakes. Their waffle fries. And, of course, I do like the basic values espoused by the Cathy family and the corporation. I’ve even been known to stand in long lines like New Yorkers are doing to eat there.

However, I doubt I would eat at Chick-fil-A if the food was terrible. Furthermore, not everyone is eating there because they agree with their religious views. In fact, ThePreachersWord could site some Biblical and theological differences we would have with the Cathy’s. But that’s not the point.

What seems to be missed by the angry detractors of the chicken chain as well as some religious folks, is that Christianity is not a corporate proposition. It is an individual relationship. It’s personal. No company can be Christian. In fact, no nation can be Christian. The word “Christian” is the “new name” given by God to individuals, born again followers of Jesus Christ. (Ax 11:26; Ax 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).

However, one’s commitments and convictions should influence their actions and attitudes in all walks of life. I recall a politician running for office several years ago who claimed to be a Christian but stated that he would not let his personal values influence his public life. Seriously?

The principles and precepts of Christianity should impact all of our relationships. In our family life, our vocation, and our social interactions, the values we embrace ought to direct our decisions and influence our choices. Morality cannot be not practiced in a vacuum. It must be open. Honest. And transparent. Our Christian walk must be exercised for all to see (Eph. 4:17-6:20). It is the essence of Christ’s command to be “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Matt 5:13-16).

While bigotry is dangerous and destructive, as described in the Atlantic piece, the irony is the very fears that some seem to harbor about Christianity, are the very ones expressed toward Christians. The ideology of a sizeable segment of our society says that it is acceptable for humanists, atheists, and infidels to express their amoral views, but Christians must keep quiet.

To the contrary, more than ever, followers of Christ need to lift their voices to share the Good News both in word and in deed. Let’s let our light shine, not just in a church building, but in the marketplace. In our social interactions. And in our opportunities for public discourse.

Let us use every opportunity to  honor Jesus and  proclaim our faith. Openly. Honestly. Lovingly. And publicly.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

WHICH CHURCH? by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/

WHICH CHURCH?  by steve finnell

Which church was established to teach the apostles doctrine. Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine..(NKJV)

Which church was established to teach the apostles' doctrine?

Was the Community Church established to preach the apostles' doctrine or the Community Church doctrine?

Was the Roman Catholic Church formed in order to teach the apostles' doctrine or to teach the Catholic catechism?

Was the Methodist Church founded in order to teach the apostles' doctrine or to proclaim Methodism?

Was the Baptist Church established to evangelize using the apostles doctrine or to preach Baptist doctrine?

If churches really wanted to preach the apostles' doctrine would they not use the identity of the church found in Scripture. Examples: Romans 16:16...The churches of Christ greet you. (NKJV), Acts 20:28 ...the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.(NKJV), 1 Corinthians 1:2...the church of God...sanctified in Christ Jesus.(NKJV).

Denominations take names other than those found in Scripture so as to identify the differences from their doctrine and that of the apostles' doctrine.

Jesus is the head of one church, His church. God did not establish multiple churches.

If all churches taught from the Bible and the Bible alone, then, denominational names would not  necessary.  

What's Wrong With Beauty and the Beast? by Richard Mansel

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/beast.html

What's Wrong With Beauty and the Beast?

Do I wish to criticize the Disney film, Beauty and the Beast? No, I feel it is one of the greatest Disney movies ever made. It is the legend I am concerned about.

My thoughts for this article began germinating recently when I heard a song by Stevie Nicks of the same title. One line in that song characterizes the legend perfectly. She wrote, after describing him as a beast, "My lover is a man that must be tamed." In the fantasy a beautiful, morally pure girl meets a raging, immoral beast of a man. She shows him love and goodness and soon he is "tamed" and becomes a perfect gentleman.

A cursory glance at society sees this attemped in far too many cases. In fact, it lies at the center of many a broken home and heart.

A preacher friend of mine whom I respect very much received a call from a young lady in palpable grief over her wayward husband. She was convinced that divorce was her only hope of finding peace. As she whined about his physical and verbal abuse, his drinking, affairs and refusal to attend worship with her, my friend developed an idea. He asked if her husband had displayed these behaviors before they were wed. As he led her through them, she hesitantly admitted that he had.

He realized two things. First, she wanted to divorce this man for all the same reasons she married him. Second, the best time to get a divorce is before one gets married.

The former may puzzle you. Why did she marry him for these terrible reasons? Surely, she didn't, you say.

Well, I have never met her. However, it is not that difficult to see that throughout history, girls have been drawn to "beasts". How many thousands of stories could we find where girls have left behind the "nice boys" to return to the ones who beat them or led them to get arrested or pregnant or addicted to alcohol and drugs?

A sage has said, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it."

Fantasies don't exist. We can wish all our lives for our spouse to be otherwise, and die disappointed. Even if we get what we desire, almost never is it what we wished it would have been. USA Today ran a poll a few years back where YM magazine had asked 15,000 girls ages 13-20 about their sexual behavior. Of those who responded, 96% of virgins and 76% of non-virgins said they had to be "in love" with someone before they had sex with them. Not surprisingly, most of those who had had sex, said they were not. In this study over half of those who were sexually active said they were too young. Reality is much more cruel than fantasy.

Satan is the "father of lies" (John 8:44) and yet more people believe him than God, "Who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). You cannot change a person. That is his responsibility and if he has not done so by adulthood, it is very possible he does not intend to.

God says little about dating in Scripture. However, He is clear that we need to be Christians and marry people of like faith (1 Corinthians 7:39). Amos wrote, "Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" (3:3). Often, a Christian girl will date a young man who lives a wild life claiming that she can convert him later. A better plan would be to try to convert him BEFORE you get married! Better yet, do not date men that are not Christians and this will never be an issue.

Richard Mansel

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

LOVE- put to the test by Gary Rose

 

This picture may have come from the efforts of a photo-shop enthusiast, but I would prefer to think it is a natural occurrence. Let’s just presume it is a natural one, because if it did- how wonderful that would be!

God declaring in the sky above, his love, again- how wonderful! But, as I think about it a troubling question comes to mind: Do I proclaim my love to others; not just my friends or family, but to everyone? Everyone, really EVERYONE?

Jesus said...

Matthew 5 ( World English Bible )

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’

⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,

⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.

⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?

⁴⁷ If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?

⁴⁸ Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Jesus gives the answer that is to be our guide- love your enemies! This may sound hard, but is a command of God. He concludes the concept- be perfect as God is perfect. In other words… love as God would love. How does God love? Everyone of course; he wants the very best for everyone- AND SO SHOULD WE!

In another passage of Scripture, Jesus links the practicality of this concept with eternal life. Consider the passage found in Luke 10.

Luke 10 ( WEB )

²⁵ Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

²⁶ He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?”

²⁷ He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

²⁹ But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?”

³⁰ Jesus answered, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

³¹ By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

³² In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side.

³³ But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion,

³⁴ came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

³⁵ On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’

³⁶ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?”

³⁷ He said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

The Jews hated the Samaritans, but Jesus gives an example of a Samaritan showing love for a stranger. Shouldn’t we be willing to do the same? The Apostle Paul taught the supremacy of love as well, consider...

Rom 13 ( WEB )

⁸ Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

⁹ For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not give false testimony,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

¹⁰ Love doesn’t harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

Gal 5 ( WEB )

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

LOVE IS THE COMPLETE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW! In all these examples the word for love is agape, or, the highest love, the love of God. We don’t have to even like someone to wish the best for them or to do something for them; we, as Christians are to imitate God’s character and do what he would do if HE were in our place – right here, right now.

See that image of a heart in the heaven? It is a message from God that he loves us! It is up to us to be what we say we are and actually love as God loves. In other words, Christian, practice what you preach!

Note to self: Gary- This means you as well. Do it!