Can we talk religion?

[Damar]

Yeah, who would have thought it was a discussion on morality that would lead to most of the responses?  God?  Bah, who needs to discuss that?  Morality is where it's at!

Damar, my problem with your argument is that you keep saying a "higher morality", yet you offer no standard for that morality. You cannot codify or describe it in absolute terms. I assume this because you have not done so thus far.

Argue about this evil or this good or this or that morality or this or that justification all you want, but until you can codify this "higher morality", I can in no way see how it is different from your creating your own means to justify any action as moral: "Well, clearly, X is right under the 'higher morality'".

True, I haven't described any kind of absolute morality at this point.  The reason for that is because if there is a higher morality, then agreeing that it exists is the first point.  Everything after that is arguable depending on religious beliefs and so on.  I didn't want to complicate the discussion by specifying an absolute morality that was based in a specific religion.

And, if the term "higher" morality seems too abstract or troublesome, then don't use that term.  My entire argument has been that there is a morality outside of what is created by society.  That's all.  I specifically haven't tried to get into what it is or where morality comes from, again because that would be complicating everything at this point.  My only argument has been only that morality does not exclusively come from society.

Let's try another-- "I do not regularly encounter charitable people (people are not in general helpful unless asked and even then there is no guarantee and they aren't exactly falling over each other to give money at any of the charity boxes in town and what's more they are unlikely to step in to help someone they see in trouble on the street unless they know someone involved), ergo the higher morality must preclude charity." You can come back at this with "well, they justify their own bad behavior", but you won't have assailed or even come close to my point which is that the structure of the argument in question is inherently flawed.

Right, but my argument wasn't that we don't regularly encounter people acting like sociopaths as a general rule.  It was that we don't encounter people acting as sociopaths as a general rule, period.  We don't find people willing to take advantage of others as a rule.  And yes, you can argue that people don't want to be in a perpetual state of war, like in the example of raiding other communities.  So, fine, let's break that down even further.  If there was no chance that a war would occur, if you knew that when you raided that community you would totally break them and they would be done, would you then feel it was morally right?  My guess is no.   Morality is not abstract based on whatever culture you're in.  There are certain things that are right and there are certain things that are wrong.  Which comes back to the point of justification.

This argument shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the semantics of the term "justify": it is not necessary for every single justification to be "against" something else. It is entirely possible to justify something in its own right against nothing else. There is no appellative justification for the physical laws that govern the universe: they are self-justifying by the very fact that they are.

To me, justification is always against something.  That's what makes it a justification rather than a statement of fact.  Justification can either be to clarify confusion or to explain why you're doing something against common wisdom or morality.  Regardless, though, whether my definition of justification is right or wrong, the examples I gave were of people justifying against something else.  With slavery, people didn't state that human slavery was morally right.  Rather, they justified by saying, "Well, no, see these slaves aren't actually human.  So the concept of human slavery doesn't apply."  Why would you justify against something if there's not actually a morality to justify against in the first place? 

Except that in terms of society, the fact that there wasn't societal moral consensus on the point of slavery in the global community of the 19th century is why it doesn't exist today. One moral consciousness got together and overpowered another moral consciousness and got rid of something it thought was morally wrong. In point of fact, the perpetrators were constantly having to defend their way of life from the other society that thought it was morally wrong, not from some arbitrary, voiceless higher moral authority.

And this gets to the core of my issue with morality being a societal construct.  Is that the only answer, that there wasn't a moral consensus?  Were people back then less enlightened, less human?  And who's to say that our moral consensus now is moral at all, compared to what future, more enlightened societies will say?  For me, morality cannot be at the mercy of societal constructs.  Morality is morality.  Either something is right or it's wrong.  It doesn't change over time.  This is at the center of the issue.  We can argue over what is morally right and wrong at a later time, but what does any of that matter if we can't even decide whether morality is something that is constant or not?  If morality is a construct of society, then it cannot be constant.  Morality must change.  And that means that our actions don't matter so much as when our actions take place.  You can argue that I'm just unable to accept any kind of relativity in my morality, and you'd be right.  Because to me, morality cannot be relative.  It would be like arguing a god who isn't omniscient or omnipotent.  What's the point in worshiping a god if those attributes aren't met?  To me, either morality is set, or it's meaningless.  So like I said, you can argue that I'm unable to accept relativity in morality, you can argue that I don't define my terms particularly well, or that I tend to ramble in a massive wall of text.  All of which is correct.  But I cannot fathom a world in which morality is relative, simply at the whim of whatever the current societal consensus is.  That would lead to any number of horrific things being moral, and I cannot accept that.  Like Blackthorne said, what matters is our actions.  But where do our actions come from?  I see them coming from something bigger than just what society says is morally correct in this particular day and age.

[Fierce Deity]

Yeah, who would have thought it was a discussion on morality that would lead to most of the responses?  God?  Bah, who needs to discuss that?  Morality is where it's at!

If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Discussing God can only lead to so many statements, and since many of us have already stated that we're atheists, you're not going to get much feedback on a comment made about God. Not that it's inappropriate to talk about God, but what do we know about Him that hasn't already been written in a 2000 year old Testament? Exactly.

Morality is more on the borderline of philosophy, and not so much religion. Religion states what you need to do to be moral. If we focused around that, there wouldn't be much leeway in this discussion. Stating how one should live his life without crossing these invisible boundaries is what we are basically discussing. I do like what Blackthorne said though. For the most part, we know what's right and what's wrong and should focus on our actions and the consequences of such actions. What makes it moral is the ambiguous law that we were given a long time ago. Wouldn't it make more sense to put aside ancient laws, and do what really is right from our own experiences? For instance, slavery is immoral but yet was supported for generations. We came to our own conclusion that slavery was wrong without the help of divine will. I'd say we can govern ourselves pretty well in these modern times, and I think God would agree. 

[Delling]

Damar, I disagree with you implicitly: to argue first "let's all agree that there is a higher morality, an absolute morality" and then only once people have agreed with you, set out to delineate what it is is a Trojan horse.

It is the type of argument that whittles people down by extracting their agreement with you little by little: you would first have someone agree that there is an absolute moral authority. I have seen this done. I have lived through this very argument countless times: first get someone to consent that there is an absolute morality, then get them to consent ounce by ounce and pound by pound that that moral authority agrees with YOU, and in the end, whoever best uses the tactic gets to be arbiter of morality. It was the modus operandi of the faculty and administration of my high school and of the textbooks they used.

"We're all Christian here right. Here's what Christians believe about morality." Uh-huh... didn't buy it then, not buying it now, from anyone not just you personally, Damar.

I accept that there are absolutes (I've already said that). I will not accept that there are arbitrary moral absolutes best interpreted for me by others in qua via obscuritas sola iacet.

[snabbott]

It would be like arguing a god who isn't omniscient or omnipotent.  What's the point in worshiping a god if those attributes aren't met?

That's pretty much what the ancient Greeks and Romans (and who knows how many other cultures) did.

To me, either morality is set, or it's meaningless.  So like I said, you can argue that I'm unable to accept relativity in morality, you can argue that I don't define my terms particularly well, or that I tend to ramble in a massive wall of text.  All of which is correct.  But I cannot fathom a world in which morality is relative, simply at the whim of whatever the current societal consensus is.  That would lead to any number of horrific things being moral, and I cannot accept that.

I agree that there is a "higher" absolute morality - but that is based on my belief in God. I don't think there is a way to logically "prove" one way or the other. There will always be people who don't accept your assumptions. I think that is a mistake a lot of Christians make - thinking that if they just present enough arguments, everyone will be convinced to believe as they do. It's pretty hard (if not impossible) to objectively analyze your own preconceptions.

Ultimately, any belief is based on faith of one sort or another. Scientists have faith in the scientific method and in the work and conclusions of scientists that came before them. Most of us have faith that our perceptions of the world are representative of reality.

It's not that I don't think that sort of reasoning isn't worthwhile. It's important to know why you believe what you believe. Questioning your faith can either lead to strengthening it or to casting doubt on its validity. Ultimately, you have to take some things by faith or you would never be able to believe anything. For example, I believe that there are atoms and molecules, even though I've never seen them. I haven't even read the research that led to the conclusion that they exist (but I could - not that I would be able to follow it all).

[Damar]

I guess I've been coming across differently than I intended, because in no way am I trying to get people to agree with my particular morality.  Heck, I haven't even tried to discuss what my particular morality is.  Like I said before, the point was made that morality is a societal construct.  I'm arguing that I don't see that.  I'm not trying to say that the morality comes from god, that it's a higher Christian morality, or even that people need to follow it.  Literally the only point I'm making is that societal constructs are not the end all and be all of morality.  There is something outside of that.  Trying to discuss what that morality is would be pointless if there's not even a consensus that the morality exists outside of a created form.

Morality is more on the borderline of philosophy, and not so much religion. Religion states what you need to do to be moral. If we focused around that, there wouldn't be much leeway in this discussion. Stating how one should live his life without crossing these invisible boundaries is what we are basically discussing.

And I completely agree.  Which is why I've tried to confine my arguments to what is seen in society and not to religious rhetoric or my own morality.  That may have made my wall of text arguments seem more nebulous (and I'm sure my rambling nature didn't help that any.)

So please let me put out there that I'm not trying to convert anyone to a higher morality.  Rather, a statement was made and I simply meant to make a counterargument and to back it up.  Not trying to convert, just defend why what I believe makes sense to me from a philosophical view, as well as from what we see in society.  That's it.  I'm not trying to make the starting point, "let's all believe in a higher morality."  Rather, I'm trying to demonstrate how a morality outside of culture seems to manifest, despite the fact that there's been a lot of evil in societies.  I'm no more trying to make everyone agree with me any more than anyone else is trying to make me agree with them that morality is a construct of society.

And the concept of faith, while important, for me, can't be the final answer.  There might be some things that have to be taken on faith, like whether god exists, however that doesn't mean that faith is the final answer.  There are still serious questions that have to be brought up, like why evil exists with a good god, how an omniscient god jives with free will, and so on.  That's why it's important to break things down and figure out what is believed and why.  Again, that's all I'm doing with the argument that morality is not a social construct.  I have no end game and I certainly don't want to come across like I do.

[darthkiwi]

So, fine, let's break that down even further.  If there was no chance that a war would occur, if you knew that when you raided that community you would totally break them and they would be done, would you then feel it was morally right?  My guess is no.

That depends on who you are and how you're brought up. If you're somebody living here, now, in a modern society which says that compassion and understanding are good, then you would not attack that city. If you were a Viking then why the hell wouldn't you?

I actually agree with some of what you're saying, but in terms which are framed VERY differently. You say that there is a higher morality which privileges the rights of all humans. In my view, there is an inner "morality" (and I put that word in quotes for a reason) which privileges the rights of people in your own society or tribe.

My reasoning is thus: love and compassion and guilt exist. They're not just intellectual, people feel them. They arose, in my view, because it was beneficial for animals to feel emotional attachment to others in their own tribe because 1) many of their fellows were actually their family, so by protecting them they were protecting similar genes (leading to the perpetuation of those genes) and 2) even if they weren't family, if animals stick together they're more likely to survive.

So I have an evolutionary explanation for sympathy. Fast-forward a few million years and you get humans. They have sympathy, but mostly for people who are like them. Outsiders are shunned and mistrusted. On top of these two impulses (trust in those like you, distrust of those unlike you) are all the societal bits and pieces like "We must have human sacrifices to keep the sun going" or "Monarchy is decided by God so our king is divine" or "Sex between two men is the most noble form of love". While these all have interesting histories behind them and would be fascinating to look at individually, they are all societally specific.

So, ultimately - yes, I think there is more to morality than society's whims. Each person carries around evolutionary baggage in the form of sympathy and emotions and this will affect them as much as society's norms. But to say that each human being has an inherent love for all other humans? That's wrong, and it's borne out by the terrible acts of violence and hatred that people have inflicted upon each other over the centuries. The war between Carthage and Rome over the Mediterranean; the persecution of the Jews throughout history; the war in Bosnia, in which people who had been neighbours mere months before suddenly turned on each other because insane politicians said that their religious differences mattered and they were now at war. Those are not the acts of people who know what they're doing is wrong but who overrule their morality out of greed. Those are the acts of a species whose first rule is "Kill the others, take things for ourselves".

[crayauchtin]

(Sorry for not reading the whole discussion first.... but I figured I'd just throw this out there. )

Well, alright, I'm a Lutheran.

That said, the only religious groups I can say I wholeheartedly disagree with are the Westboro Baptist Church (sorry, your message is that God hates? No, you're not a religion, you're a bunch of pathetic people looking for attention.) and Scientology (only because the guy who founded the religion said in an interview that he wanted to found a religion to make money.... and then proceeded to found a religion that made him filthy rich.... )

...and I apologize to any devout Scientologists we might have on these forums. That's all I know about Scientology, it was enough to make anything about it seem silly to me.

I think that, if you boil each religion down to their very basics they come out the same: there is a higher purpose than you, and you should be nice to people. Whatever form a religion takes beyond that is fairly unnecessary, don't you think? All of the religious conflicts and close-mindedness come about when people get caught up in the details and don't focus on the big picture.

[Damar]

Darthkiwi, that's basically what I was getting at, so I agree with you for the most part.  To clarify, though, I don't think that people necessarily have an inherent love for other humans.  But I do think that there's an inherent feeling of guilt when people hurt others.  Mostly.  Obviously there are exceptions, like sociopaths, or people who are just really selfish.  Or people that justify their actions by trying to remove certain ethnic groups from the category of "human" (like supremacists do, or people who justify genocides.)  Heck, even the Romans tried to justify destroying Carthage by going to the senate and saying, "Um...so, Carthage...totally still a threat.  We should totally go over there again and kill them all before they pick themselves up, bandage themselves up, and throw rocks at us.  And then we can salt the earth.  Just to be sure."  It's a weak justification, but still a justification, which I think points to some guilt, or some nagging feeling that what they were doing wasn't right, even if they immediately pushed it out of their mind.  But again, that doesn't mean that I think people love each other.  Just that there is a morality that holds us back from acting completely like sociopaths.  Where that morality comes from, though, is an entirely different discussion, whether it's evolutionary or god or something unique to humans.  But I'm not even touching that discussion for now.  So I'll just leave it that I agree with you on there being something outside of the whims of society.

And yeah, cray, as much as I try to respect all religions, Scientologists do tend to aggravate me a bit.  I think the main reason is (aside from the fact that they do seem to be a straight up scam and extremely cultish) that they actually do harm to people.  Their beliefs will keep people from getting psychiatric help, which leads to higher rates of suicide and a worse quality of life.  Not that I believe that a person's religion should be banned, even when it goes to that extreme, but it is upsetting to see people who could get help not receive it because of a belief.  And I feel the same way about extreme Christians who shun medicine for prayer only, or who won't vaccinate because somehow they've tied that in to evil (or latch on to vaccinations causing autism or other developmental disorders which is just completely untrue and shown to be so over and over again.)

[snabbott]

@Damar - Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to convince everyone that you're right and they're wrong. I was speaking in general terms.

In my view, there is an inner "morality" (and I put that word in quotes for a reason) which privileges the rights of people in your own society or tribe.

My reasoning is thus: love and compassion and guilt exist. They're not just intellectual, people feel them. They arose, in my view, because it was beneficial for animals to feel emotional attachment to others in their own tribe because 1) many of their fellows were actually their family, so by protecting them they were protecting similar genes (leading to the perpetuation of those genes) and 2) even if they weren't family, if animals stick together they're more likely to survive.

So I have an evolutionary explanation for sympathy.

I had meant to point out that that is a common explanation for "higher morality" that doesn't rely on the existence of God.

That said, the only religious groups I can say I wholeheartedly disagree with are the Westboro Baptist Church (sorry, your message is that God hates? No, you're not a religion, you're a bunch of pathetic people looking for attention.)

This. People like that are an embarrassment (actually, that's not a strong enough word) to real Christians.

[Delling]

That said, the only religious groups I can say I wholeheartedly disagree with are the Westboro Baptist Church (sorry, your message is that God hates? No, you're not a religion, you're a bunch of pathetic people looking for attention.)

This. People like that are an embarrassment (actually, that's not a strong enough word) to real Christians.

There are words for what they are... they're just archaic, Sumerian and written in blood. (...or I recently watched Evil Dead with my roommates).

...but no. Seriously, there are sufficiently negative words for them out there. I'm sure of it. If words like "deinos" and "iontach" exist, somewhere there is a word for exactly what those people are. (This is a logical fallacy, but I am not using it as an argument or to support a point, merely rhetorically to reflect an expectation. )

And I feel the same way about extreme Christians who shun medicine for prayer only, or who won't vaccinate because somehow they've tied that in to evil (or latch on to vaccinations causing autism or other developmental disorders which is just completely untrue and shown to be so over and over again.)

Well, those are two different crazy somewhat religiously motivated groups (though the latter is considerably more open in terms of its believers): the former is an actual cult called the Christian Science movement... it is creeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy.

[Damar]

Yeah, Christian Science does go off into cult-land.  And so does Westboro.  Actually, they probably fall a little short of being a full cult.  From what I've heard, the church is mainly just family of the preacher there.  So it's less a cultish religion and more just a crazy, brainwashed family.  And yes, there are definitely words for them.  But this board won't let me type them without replacing most of the letters with asterisks.

Not that being a cult is 100% going to mean something bad.  Technically speaking Christianity and Islam both started as cults.  They just got big enough that they could be called their own religion now.  Same with Buddhism, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others.

[crayauchtin]

Not that being a cult is 100% going to mean something bad.  Technically speaking Christianity and Islam both started as cults.  They just got big enough that they could be called their own religion now.  Same with Buddhism, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others.

That's so true -- the word "cult" has a negative connotation but it really just means it's a religion without as many followers.

[writerlove]

I apologize in advance if I come off as rude. That is NOT my intention at all. But as a life long Christian Scientist, I have to defend my position and give our perspective.

Anyway yes there are some hardcore people who only use prayer for medicinal purposes. We have what are called practitioners that someone can call and ask to pray for them when they are in crisis. And for them, it works. I, on the other hand, do not do that. I take 6 medications a day for my different health problems. It's up to the person to interpret it the way they want to. Here's a link to our six main tenets and other things from our church. They can explain it better than I can. If you have any questions I will be glad to answer them either here or via private message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Science_tenets,_prayers,_and_statements

[snabbott]

If I'm understanding it correctly (and it's quite possible that I am not), the idea behind spiritual healing in Christian Science is that disease isn't real.

Something like:
1. God is completely good.
2. God created everything.
3. Because God is good, he couldn't (or wouldn't) create anything bad.
4. Evil and disease are bad, therefore God did not create them, therefore they are not real.

So if people can realize that there is no illness, they will be well.

Somewhere in there was the idea that only spiritual and not physical things are real.

I've probably made a mistake in there, but that's the way it sounds to me.

Oh, and Kristen, you didn't come off as being the least bit rude.

[Blackthorne]

Yeah, if that's how it goes, I'd be glad to show them how real my kidney failure is.


Bt

[darthkiwi]

@Damar: I think we've got to a point in our discussion where we can't do much more discussion (of that subject, anyway) without flogging a dead horse. I know what your opinion is, you know mine, we've both learned a bit about the other but further discussion would probably not go anywhere. So, I respect your opinion but maintain that I disagree with it.

@writerlove: what is it that sets Christian Science apart from other christian groups such as Protestantism? Why are you a member of this group rather than another? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. It seems to me that your six tenets are not so different to the beliefs of many other christian groups.

And yes, there are some very strange cults out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Summary

Xenu (play /ˈziːnuː/ zee-noo),[1][2][3] also spelled Xemu, was, according to the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[4][5] of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.[1][6]

These events are known within Scientology as "Incident II",[7] and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The narrative of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings about extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events, collectively described as space opera by Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that the R6 "implant" (past trauma)[8] was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia, etc.) anyone who attempts to solve it".

[writerlove]

Kiwi: That's the point I'm trying to make, actually. People try to make us all radical but we're not much different from other Christians. Why was Jesus able to heal? Because he didn't see the matter, the sin or disease. He saw the true spiritual being that is within us. We believe our true form is from Genesis chapter 1. God made us in his "image and likeness". Then matter/sin/evil what have you is originates from Genesis chapter 2. It's a constant battle to cancel out the mortal mind. People make fun of us because some of us don't use medicine but really, it's no different than what Jesus did. Did he ask the woman with the infirmity what kind of disease it was? No. He simply banished the evil from her body. Jesus had in him what we call the Christ (that came from God) and now it is within the rest of us.

Why am I a Christian Scientist?  To put it simply: it just makes sense to me. I grew up in the church. I tried going to some other Christian groups in college. It was too evangelistic for me. I didn't want to be one of those zealous people shoving their religion down someone's throat. I believe spirituality is a personal thing and everyone has to find his or her own answer. Those sects of Christianity are more emotion based (NOT saying that's wrong... just not my cup of tea).  I feel like Christian Science is more intellectual. We analyze and see things for what they are. (Again not saying others don't... just giving my opinion).


(Posted on: October 19, 2011, 02:45:50 PM)

If I'm understanding it correctly (and it's quite possible that I am not), the idea behind spiritual healing in Christian Science is that disease isn't real.

Something like:
1. God is completely good.
2. God created everything.
3. Because God is good, he couldn't (or wouldn't) create anything bad.
4. Evil and disease are bad, therefore God did not create them, therefore they are not real.

So if people can realize that there is no illness, they will be well.

Somewhere in there was the idea that only spiritual and not physical things are real.

I've probably made a mistake in there, but that's the way it sounds to me.

Oh, and Kristen, you didn't come off as being the least bit rude.

THANK YOU! That is exactly our stance.

[Blackthorne]

People make fun of us because some of us don't use medicine but really, it's no different than what Jesus did.

The people who "make fun of you" also consider Jesus (or more accurately, the stories told about him) to be quite silly as well.


Bt

[Fierce Deity]

If you wouldn't mind me asking a few questions about Christian Science, I would like to play the Devil's advocate for a moment, writerlove.

So if one were to denounce the existence of a disease, they would then theoretically be considered "well" or on the "path to being well"? I have to ask, because people on the path to being well are still affected by the disease or at least still have some symptoms.

Also, (and this doesn't have to be taken seriously) if disease is unreal, then what would be the difference between someone who has contracted the symptoms of a disease and a hypochondriac who thinks he has caught a multitude of diseases but is as healthy as a horse?

A friend of my dad's is a Christian Scientist, but as an outsider, I was never able to understand the specifics. I've always been curious about the belief system though.

[writerlove]

First of all, my name is Kristen so you may call me that if you like *points to signature*

I'm not saying healings are always instantaneous. Some are and some aren't. I've heard about both.  A prayer one can say is "this (insert symptom) is not of God. It's erroneous. I am  the perfect, whole child of God."

I'd say there's no difference between the two you proposed. Here is a quote from our church founder Mary Baker Eddy about the subject

"Disease is an experience of mortal mind. It is fear made manifest on the body. Divine Science takes away this physical sense of discord, just as it removes a sense of moral or mental inharmony."
      - Science and Health (ch. XIV)

She's basically saying there is no difference between the hypochondriac and someone who is actually sick because both are in the mindset that "I am sick, there is something wrong with me."

Also, to refer to the medicine notion from earlier. We are not REQUIRED to not take medicine. Even Mrs. Eddy admits that. "If Christian Scientists ever fail to receive aid from other Scientists – their brethren upon whom they may call – God will still guide them into the right use of temporary and eternal means."-Science and Health, pg. 444.

I thank you all for your interest and kindness. I've been ridiculed a bit for it so I'm pretty reluctant to speak about my beliefs outside of close friends and church itself. I just want people to understand what we're about. It irritates me to no end how some other Christians just ridicule someone just because they don't believe the exact same doctrine. It's rubbish in my opinion. We both believe in God. We both know Jesus is the Son of God. So why hate on the specifics, just like Cray said. If you're an atheist, I respect that. I don't understand the position but I don't hate on it. Again I think finding your morality, by whatever means, is a personal thing and everyone is different.