Bob Enyart - Open Theism - Biblical Events Not Happening?

Lon

Well-known member
When you decided to believe and trust in God you did so because you judged Him trustworthy. He made us logical, thinking beings; then, He went about proving His goodness. I do not believe that God is good because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible because God has proved that what it says about Him is true. I have judged Him faithful to His Word; therefore, His Word is true.

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Agape,
CiY

I disagree, I decided because "I" was judged by God, not that He was judged by me. I totally accepted my judgement, He was right, I was wrong. I needed a Savior. So it 'was' and should be exactly the opposite. We accept His judgement.
I knew that judgement against me was correct. How about you?
Go read the last 3 pages of OV Theism thread for Philetus' treatment of this btw. He's explained about the same thing but took a few pages to say it.
 

yankeedoodled

New member
Can prophesy be changed, of course. God has repeatedly admonished to repent and turn from you wicked ways. Jonah had a hard time coming to terms with God can change His mind IF people will turn from their wicked ways, Nineveth.
 
Last edited:

CiY127

New member
I disagree, I decided because "I" was judged by God, not that He was judged by me. I totally accepted my judgement, He was right, I was wrong. I needed a Savior. So it 'was' and should be exactly the opposite. We accept His judgement.
I knew that judgement against me was correct. How about you?
Go read the last 3 pages of OV Theism thread for Philetus' treatment of this btw. He's explained about the same thing but took a few pages to say it.

How could you accept God's judgment unless you judged Him worthy to judge you? If I judge you guilty it is meaningless because you have determined (judged) my judgment is not worthy. You therefore have judged that God's judgment is worth being accepted.

Agape,
CiY
 

Lon

Well-known member
I'll get to the other post later.

Just thanks for admitting that your own judgment was involved in your salvation.

Yeah, I've been moving from an Arminian position toward Calvinism, but I've still the same questions you ask as well. The Ask Mr. Religion man addressed this point for consideration. He believes that 'Free-will' is a bit of illusionary and posits some pretty solid stuff (with Clete in the AMR thread).

In Him

Lon
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
yorzhik said:
Within every example that I've seen from people who uphold the SV, they always have to add an OV component or their example is absurd.

In your example, the salesman knows the future exhaustively, and would know that the car would stop 130k mi. Why did you mention the 200k mi's? Because that was "possible" if the guy took care of his car? Not in the SV it isn't - you added an OV thing. The 200k mi figure is a lie if the saleman tells the guy he will go 200k mi if he takes care of his car knowing the guy won't take care of the car and knowing the car will stop at 130k mi.
I can appreciate that you think this, but it is incorrect, or you have misconstrued the SV position to either a generality.

God designed man to live for ever if he followed the one prohibition. It is not His fault in design, or providence.
Stop right there. The "It is not His fault in design, or providence." IS ENTIRELY DEPENDANT ON "if he followed the one prohibition". You've just stated the OV position. You aren't describing the SV anymore. I'm not misconstruing this. There is no "if" in the SV, whether by exhaustive foreknowledge or direct causation.

Lonster said:
In the above explanation, hopefully this assessment is made clear.
It is made clear that you don't understand what exhaustive foreknowledge means. Now, I'll grant you that you might argue that for God, logic is different. That whatever God does is logical because He does it, and if God wanted to he could make a circle with corners and not only could God do it, but it would be logical. Is this the case?

Lonster said:
When you read Jonah chapter 4, what is Jonah's disposition? Why is he mad? What did he understand about this judgement? What does that imply to you?
It means that Jonah understood Jeremiah 18. It was a wonderful thing for God to warn Nineveh, and even better that Nineveh heeded the warning. But that only indicts the person with exhaustive foreknowledge that had God tell Jonah to go to Nineveh because that person lied.

Lonster said:
Then even your God would be a joke, because OV is birthed out of traditional theology. It would be similar if I told Catholics something similar. They may have went wrong in theology, but they were and many still are His church. They may be wrong, but I would not say that the God they believe in is a joke, because He is my God.
I only say that in the context of this debate. In general, I praise God for all my brothers and sisters in Christ even if they believe SV. Just so we're both on the same page, don't in the future say the OV God is limited or small and I won't say the SV God is a joke.

Lonster said:
He does 'good' because it is His nature. He is not judged by you or I. How would you be able to measure perfection with imperfect tools, and imperfect knowledge?
Rather, we are compared to Him because we are imperfect.

I don't believe God has given an unconditional prophecy that was not fulfilled. If it was unfulfilled, it was 'conditional' or not prophecy at all. Ninevah: Conditional implied (Jonah definitely knew it was implied-He had a tizzy over it).
But if God were good because of His nature, then He wouldn't do things not because He foreknew them, but because it would be the good thing to do at the time.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Hello again Yorzhik,
I appreciate your kind words and much of your post.
Stop right there. The "It is not His fault in design, or providence." IS ENTIRELY DEPENDANT ON "if he followed the one prohibition". You've just stated the OV position. You aren't describing the SV anymore. I'm not misconstruing this. There is no "if" in the SV, whether by exhaustive foreknowledge or direct causation.

And I can appreciate that. I've ideas where they are compatible with Open View.
However, I see things through my own egocentric perspective so I can get things wrong.
When we are talking about the context of original sin, it is a difficult prospect to discern or even consider. One important note is that Satan messed in this mix. He was the broken cog. Nothing God made was broken. This could go back to how Satan then failed originally, but for this context, the 'if' factor was not God's, it was Satan's. He introduced 'if's.' "Did God really say? 'If' you eat it, you will not surely die."


It is made clear that you don't understand what exhaustive foreknowledge means. Now, I'll grant you that you might argue that for God, logic is different. That whatever God does is logical because He does it, and if God wanted to he could make a circle with corners and not only could God do it, but it would be logical. Is this the case?

Okay, I'll bite. Explain it to me. What leads you to this statement(First sentence)?
As to the rest of the paragraph, God can do anything except answer an illogical question with the answer you are looking for. His answer is right and logical.


It means that Jonah understood Jeremiah 18. It was a wonderful thing for God to warn Nineveh, and even better that Nineveh heeded the warning. But that only indicts the person with exhaustive foreknowledge that had God tell Jonah to go to Nineveh because that person lied.

This is an erroneaus conclusion: Jonah understood. Either it was said or implied if they repented God would not carry out His action. Jonah knew this. He even says so in chapter 4. You aren't considering the text here, you are molding the story to fit your theology. You cannot just read to chapter 3 and be done. It isn't appropriate for OV.
I only say that in the context of this debate. In general, I praise God for all my brothers and sisters in Christ even if they believe SV. Just so we're both on the same page, don't, in the future, say the OV God is limited or small and I won't say the SV God is a joke.

I have no problem with "The God of SV is nonrelational," or "made of stone," but 'joke' is something altogether different. One assesses correctly, the other means nothing but a slam. You could rephrase 'joke' to something other than a purposeful insult that means nothing. 'Joke' is derrogatory and hold next to no meaningful conveyance. As long as it is accurate and conveys something and is said respectfully, I have no problem with an assessment. 'Joke' to me is meaningless. If you want to explain it in appreciable terms, I'd have no problem with the assessment. Just don't call something a joke where the other person's values are concerned. I've never said the OV God is a joke, ever.

But if God were good because of His nature, then He wouldn't do things not because He foreknew them, but because it would be the good thing to do at the time.

You are using your own 'ruler' again here. As previously stated, we don't measure God, He measures us. I don't think it is improper to measure for we are called to discover the depth, breadth, and width of His love, but are instantaneously reminded that it cannot be measured. Our measuring is not accurate, sufficient for the time being, but not 100% accurate. Ecc 8:17


In Him
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Hello Yorzhik,

If I am a car maker, and I know the engine will quite running after 200k mi. What if I know it will quit working after only 130k mi if the guy doesn't do proper maintenance?

Going futher, what if I'm the salesman and the guy brings in the same car type with an engine that has seized at 130k, is it wrong for me to sale the car to him?
Here's the problem with your argument.

God knows certain things will happen, if people do certain things. That does not mean He knows those things will happen for certain. Only if people do certain things that will lead to those outcomes, such as the illustration you made of the car seizing at 130, if the proper care is not taken.
 

Quasar1011

New member
Jesus has said that the time of the Tribulation will be shortened for the sake of the elect. It will likely not be a full seven years. - praise God!
It was shortened from 9 years to 7. 9 is the Biblical number of judgment. Jesus knew man would not make it those last 2 years of great tribulation, so He shortened it to 7.

Some prophecies are conditional...if...then....others are declarations of God's intentions that He will bring to pass regardless what man does. Jonah and Hezekiah are conditional prophecies. The prophetic view of Revelation is something God purposes to bring to pass by His ability (Is. 46; 48). They do not have a conditional element (except as it relates to individual salvation) in regards to the judging of nations and restoration of Israel. Rev. 6-22 will unfold according to plan in a general sense. Minute details that may be variable are not in the scope of the prophecy.

This is the best response I have seen! :thumb: I might add that the reason God can make such unconditional promises, is that He is already in the future, and not limited by our human timeline.

Romans 4:17
As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
This is the best response I have seen! :thumb: I might add that the reason God can make such unconditional promises, is that He is already in the future, and not limited by our human timeline.


Well, in the Open View, the reason God can make unconditional promises is because of His ability to bring to pass what He wants to by His omnicompetence. The principles in Is. 46 and 48 (read closely) state that God can declare the beginning from end in specific things because of His ability. The future is not a thing or place that God can be in. Sanders and others have shown that God does not need simple foreknowledge in order to bring things about in the future (and declare what He will do in advance). An omnicompetent God does not need a crystal ball. Open Theists generally reject 'eternal now' simultaneity in favor of eternity as endless time/duration. So, God does not literally see the future in advance because it is not there yet to see. I can predict in advance that I will drive my car to work tomorrow and that I will go to class after work. I do not have to be in the future or see it in advance in actual detail to make this prediction/declaration. It is fully in my power to make it happen as I declare. This is the applicable principle in Isaiah. It would be reading a preconceived idea back into the text to think it is talking about timelessness or simple foreknowledge. As I said, we can demonstrate philosophically and biblically that seeing the future is not necessary for prophecy when God has the ability to make it happen as He declares. There are only a couple of prophecies (naming of Cyrus being one) where things were predicted in advance, yet involved free will. Even in this case, God could superintend or intervene as necessary to make it happen (cf. naming of Jesus and naming of John the Baptist).
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
... I do not have to be in the future or see it in advance in actual detail to make this prediction/declaration. .
The book of Enoch read with the OT and NT totally destroys not only MAD doctrine falsehoods but the teaching of OV, for Enoch was taken forward in time, I fully believe after reading the book, and taken to the City of God -Zion- which he saw 'afar off" -in the future, and longed to go to, and was taken to, in his translated body, and placed at the feet of the LORD Jesus on His throne of Glory -after Jesus ascended and sat down...
Enoch walked with God and "was not" for God took [laqach] him. But Enoch's being 'Was not" explains his being "taken forward" "in time", to that Day when Zion was built up by the Foundation Stone's resurrection and ascension, when He received the glory.
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
I suggest that God has already promised to do this - just like He stopped the angel from carrying out the full punishment he had promised in David's time. Jesus has said that the time of the Tribulation will be shortened for the sake of the elect. It will likely not be a full seven years. - praise God!

Well, the days themselves will be shortened, but not the number of them, making the time called the Tribulation seven full years -but only 6 years and 4 months of them will be the time of the beast's rule over the earth, when the 10 kings give him their authority for "1 hour", because Enoch saw the 75 years of the Babylonian captivity as "12 hours" in duration, and the 1 hour of the beasts rule is then 6.3 years, in the same prophetic rekoning.

Because the perfected sons of God who are celebrating their full seven days of consecration as priests in the Temple, behind shut doors, as the Living Oracles teach, of that time of the going in of the sons of God in their priesthood garments of glory [regenerated New Man bodies], then the time from the rapture of the congregation -the entire Church of born again Believers in the New Man's Living Spirit which consists of all the righteous souls of this earth's entire time period since creation- to the time the LORD returns to earth to take His great power unto Himself and reign, by putting down all authority and cleansing the earth of all the wicked and rebels, is a full seven "years" -a "week" of seven years.

The shortened days are explained in the prophets as being 1/3 less in hours, so that all flesh on earth does not perish from the great heat, for the sun will shine seven times brighter and the moon also, in that time, but 1/3 of the day and 1/3 of the night will not shine, making 16 hour days, when the earth is moved out of it's orbit, reels like a drunken man, jumps about as a hunted roe, and is turned upside down; when tsunami's and hurricanes roar and every island vanishes..
 

Philetus

New member
Philetus, in Psalm 37 the theme is of the wicked passing away and the meek inheriting the earth, which is the time of the second consumation of sin on earth which was foretold by Enoch the seer, prophet, and scribe, before the flood, and Jude, a sibling of Jesus Christ, quoted from Enoch on that time which is yet to come.

Jesus referenced it, also, when He was asked what the sign of His coming was, for His reply was that "This generation shall not pass away until...and He delineated all the things that must come to pass on the earth before "This generation passes away ", as they did pass away from earth in the first consumation of sin on earth by the flood, "when they were all taken away".
The "one generation" of the children of wrath, "all the wicked", demons and rebel men who willfully rebel and all rebel angels who rule over this earth from the heavenly realm of it's dominion [which belonged to Adam, which Adam lost], will not pass away from the earth until the time appointed from the beginning of creation comes -which time is already appointed and will come in it's pre-appointed season.

You used the passage in Psalm 75 from a faulty translation, and that is sloppy of you, as the concordance is easy to find and use; and the original is not "choose" as in "deciding later", for there is no "time" word in the original passage meaning to decide later in any sense, in context, but "laqach" of the "congregation", as in "taking away" =to Himself;
Psalm 75:2, in the Hebrew: laqach mow`ed shaphat meyshar
"Laqach" is translated these ways in the AV -from blb.org:


"mow`ed" is the congregation of YHWH, which is comprised of the OT testament saints who were taken to Zion above to wait for their regenerated bodies when Jesus ascended, and led them out of Sheol below to Zion above, and of NT saints -since His resurrection and ascension, who live on earth since the resurrection of the LORD in their own bodies until they depart the body to go to Zion above to wait for their resurrection bodies of regeneration also, for only those resurrected in Chrsit "Firstfruits" of the harvest of sons of God of the first harvest have been resurrected in their regenerated bodies, in Christ "The" Firstfruits, when He raised them at His resurrection, top fulfill the Living Oracle in the Law of "first of firstfruits", after Passover.
mow`ed: 1) appointed place, appointed time, meeting
a) appointed time
1) appointed time (general)
2) sacred season, set feast, appointed season
b) appointed meeting
c) appointed place
d) appointed sign or signal
e) tent of meeting

AV - congregation 150, feast 23, season 13, appointed 12, time 12,
assembly 4, solemnity 4, solemn 2, days 1, sign 1, synagogues 1; 223


"shaphat" is to vindicate, punish -and He will "laqach" the congregation from the midst of earth and then "vindicate His own by His wrath poured out and He will "plead with all flesh on earth"
"shaphat" ;1) to judge, govern, vindicate, punish
a) (Qal)
1) to act as law-giver or judge or governor (of God, man)
a) to rule, govern, judge
2) to decide controversy (of God, man)
3) to execute judgment
a) discriminating (of man)
b) vindicating
c) condemning and punishing
d) at theophanic advent for final judgment
b) (Niphal)
1) to enter into controversy, plead, have controversy together
2) to be judged
c) (Poel) judge, opponent-at-law (participle)

AV - judge (v) 119, judge (n) 60, plead 11, avenged 2, condemn 2,
execute 2, judgment 2, defend 1, deliver 1, misc 3; 203


meyshar is 1) evenness, uprightness, straightness, equity
a) evenness, level, smoothness
b) uprightness, equity
c) rightly (as adv)

AV - equity 4, uprightly 3, uprightness 3, right things 2, agreement 1,
aright 1, equal 1, right 1, righteously 1, sweetly 1, upright 1; 19

I didn't see this until tonight.

You missed the whole point. Everything you underlined in your previous post of Psalm 37 is God's to do. Not yours. Not mine. God's.

It's not a faulty translation that's the problem, its straining at gnats to swallow camels. You don't even speak English anymore. It just isn't that complicated.

You have one hobby horse and its judgment. Have a good ride.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Laq: Most of us doubt the credibility of Enoch. It certainly is not part of the canon of Scripture.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Lonster said:
When we are talking about the context of original sin, it is a difficult prospect to discern or even consider. One important note is that Satan messed in this mix. He was the broken cog. Nothing God made was broken. This could go back to how Satan then failed originally, but for this context, the 'if' factor was not God's, it was Satan's. He introduced 'if's.' "Did God really say? 'If' you eat it, you will not surely die."
So Satan was not created by God originally as a angel of light? If Satan was created by God, then he is just another part of God's foreknowledge, no different from humans in their ability to throw "ifs" into God's plans.

Yorzhik said:
It is made clear that you don't understand what exhaustive foreknowledge means.
Lonster said:
Okay, I'll bite. Explain it to me. What leads you to this statement
Because you keep saying things as if the Open View were true, but you claim to be explaining exhaustive foreknowledge. Either you didn't mean what you said in your explanation, or you didn't understand what you were trying to explain. I think you are trying to be right with God, so I'll opt for the later.

Yorzhik said:
Now, I'll grant you that you might argue that for God, logic is different. That whatever God does is logical because He does it, and if God wanted to he could make a circle with corners and not only could God do it, but it would be logical. Is this the case?
Lonster said:
God can do anything except answer an illogical question with the answer you are looking for. His answer is right and logical.
So God can make a circle with corners and not only could God do it, but it would be logical. Correct?

Lonster said:
This is an erroneaus conclusion: Jonah understood. Either it was said or implied if they repented God would not carry out His action.
It doesn't matter if it were said or implied. It doesn't matter. I admitted that it was said or implied. It doesn't matter. Please stop focusing on whether there was an if there. Stop. Stop it. Just stop.

This is the point, please don't think I'm saying any more than this. And if you want to answer clearly, please only answer directly to this. Please...

If you include an "if" in your account, then the story includes a contingency that is not settled. Does the "if" exist in your statement? It does. But there are no "ifs" in the Settled View (unless you don't understand the Settled View/exhaustive foreknowledge, or if you think God-can-do-something-illogical-because-God-does-it). If there is an "if" in the story of Jonah and exhaustive foreknowledge is true and logic exists, then the person responsible is the person that had God tell Jonah to go to Nineveh and the story that God had put in His Word was from His perspective which included an "if".

I realize that is a big sentence, so all we really need to know from you, in a direct and clear manner: Is exhaustive foreknowledge true? Does logic exist? Do you realize you cannot have an "if" in what you are saying and also be talking about the Settled View/Exhaustive Foreknowledge?

Lonster said:
I have no problem with "The God of SV is nonrelational," or "made of stone," but 'joke' is something altogether different. One assesses correctly, the other means nothing but a slam. You could rephrase 'joke' to something other than a purposeful insult that means nothing. 'Joke' is derrogatory and hold next to no meaningful conveyance. As long as it is accurate and conveys something and is said respectfully, I have no problem with an assessment. 'Joke' to me is meaningless. If you want to explain it in appreciable terms, I'd have no problem with the assessment. Just don't call something a joke where the other person's values are concerned.
Calling God "non-relational" or "made of stone" are also pejoratives. Pretty serious ones when it comes to God, no less. How is "joke" seriouser? Why the distinction?

I've never said the OV God is a joke, ever.
I know. I said don't call the OV God small or limited.

Yorzhik said:
But if God were good because of His nature, then He wouldn't do things not because He foreknew them, but because it would be the good thing to do at the time.
You are using your own 'ruler' again here. As previously stated, we don't measure God, He measures us. I don't think it is improper to measure for we are called to discover the depth, breadth, and width of His love, but are instantaneously reminded that it cannot be measured. Our measuring is not accurate, sufficient for the time being, but not 100% accurate. Ecc 8:17
This just doesn't make sense. It's so vague it could mean a great number of things.

Do you mean that, because of the passage you mentioned, because we cannot know everything about God that there are not some things we can know about God?

Do you mean we cannot judge God and if, for instance, God were to throw all the Christians into eternal torment you'd have no problem with that because God did it?

Could you give straightforward answers to the above 2 questions?
 

Lon

Well-known member
So Satan was not created by God originally as a angel of light? If Satan was created by God, then he is just another part of God's foreknowledge, no different from humans in their ability to throw "ifs" into God's plans.

LOL! (ahem...cough...sorry) I knew that was going to take you off topic.


Because you keep saying things as if the Open View were true, but you claim to be explaining exhaustive foreknowledge. Either you didn't mean what you said in your explanation, or you didn't understand what you were trying to explain. I think you are trying to be right with God, so I'll opt for the later.

Hmmm, to be 'right with God' I must adopt the latter......hmmm.
Did I just misread you?

So God can make a circle with corners and not only could God do it, but it would be logical. Correct?

We can ask stupid questions that have stupid answers ('we' collectively here).
It doesn't matter if it were said or implied. It doesn't matter. I admitted that it was said or implied. It doesn't matter. Please stop focusing on whether there was an if there. Stop. Stop it. Just stop.

This is the point, please don't think I'm saying any more than this. And if you want to answer clearly, please only answer directly to this. Please...
Great, we agree. This statement by God, was not unconditional, but conditional. Am I understanding you correctly?
If you include an "if" in your account, then the story includes a contingency that is not settled. Does the "if" exist in your statement? It does. But there are no "ifs" in the Settled View (unless you don't understand the Settled View/exhaustive foreknowledge, or if you think God-can-do-something-illogical-because-God-does-it). If there is an "if" in the story of Jonah and exhaustive foreknowledge is true and logic exists, then the person responsible is the person that had God tell Jonah to go to Nineveh and the story that God had put in His Word was from His perspective which included an "if".
I appreciate this. It is a hard address to buy into in becoming a Calvinist that I'm not clear on. I'd love for one of them to address this that I might understand their position. I lean toward Calvinism, but have similar questions.
I realize that is a big sentence, so all we really need to know from you, in a direct and clear manner: Is exhaustive foreknowledge true? Does logic exist? Do you realize you cannot have an "if" in what you are saying and also be talking about the Settled View/Exhaustive Foreknowledge?
There are some good philosophical arguments why it would need to be true from other aspects we know about Him (Omnipotence, Eternality, and Omnipresent). These make a united stance in favor of Exhaustive foreknowledge, but at this point, I'm only prepared to expound "Future Knowledge." I believe God has this without question. This would be a one post subject so if you'd like to just address this portion and examine it, we can let the other concepts sit on hold, but you can read quite a bit of my position in the OV theology thread.

Calling God "non-relational" or "made of stone" are also pejoratives. Pretty serious ones when it comes to God, no less. How is "joke" seriouser? Why the distinction?
Oh, sorry. Calvinist's take those criticisms in here. I agree with you and you've supported my point. I hope you can re-read it the same way. We both absolutely agree. We need to be careful in our assessments. I was bothered greatly by the "The God of Calvinism......." thread for just this reason. It is great having someone from OV agree with me on this level. We need to be careful.

I know. I said don't call the OV God small or limited.
Understood.


This just doesn't make sense. It's so vague it could mean a great number of things.

Do you mean that, because of the passage you mentioned, because we cannot know everything about God that there are not some things we can know about God?
No
Do you mean we cannot judge God and if, for instance, God were to throw all the Christians into eternal torment you'd have no problem with that because God did it?
Yes. While it may be troubling, whatever God does is right by His very nature and our very nature. We are the created things. God 'owns' us. He can do whatever He likes with what He owns. I do, however concur with you that He does not act against His nature, but in some passages in scripture, we have doubts. I've had those in the past growing up with my parents. Sometimes they'd tell me to do something that didn't make sense to me, or left me wondering. Of course they weren't perfect, but I did learn that many of the things answered "Because I said so" had great reasons behind them. The bottom line is that God is perfect, loving, and Holy, and I trust Him. I believe you agree. It is hard to read some OT passages, but I trust God to be perfect, loving, right, true, correct, holy, etc.
Could you give straightforward answers to the above 2 questions?

I was speaking to this "if God were good because of His nature" God is good regardless, so this does address your last question.
 
Top