The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Let's see ...

You post on the Christianity board, presumably in the knowledge that Christians believe in an omnipotent God. You argue against God being able to do something because it is difficult. Then, when a Christian, quite reasonably, refers to God's omnipotence, you try to dismiss this central tenet of Christianity as if were a ploy - as if they invented God's omnipotence in order to dodge your question.

Much, much more than just difficult PDN, and to simply dismiss it as childs play for a omnipotent God is to install a road block in your mind that for me is just sticking your head in the sand.

TBH I simply don't get it. Thats why I ask. To believe, on faith alone, something that monumentally huge really staggers me.

I don't understand why people have faith, I'm trying to understand why Christians believe what they believe but I keep coming up to this brick wall of "thats what I believe" without any other need for justification. The more I ask christians why the more it seems the the lack of justification is a virtue.

EDIT: Thanks Wicknight, that whats I'm getting at.

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

Let's see ...

You post on the Christianity board, presumably in the knowledge that Christians believe in an omnipotent God. You argue against God being able to do something because it is difficult. Then, when a Christian, quite reasonably, refers to God's omnipotence, you try to dismiss this central tenet of Christianity as if were a ploy - as if they invented God's omnipotence in order to dodge your question.

Although you have to understand that there is nothing to suggest that it ever occured. No trace in the Solar System's orbits or anything. So God did it and then erased all traces or something equivalent. Of course he could have done it, but at that rate he could have done anything and since it left no indent in history it might as well have not happened, functionally speaking.

Spyral

if the bible s literally true about creation then is it also correct when it says that the world doesn't move ? I think not

you cannot pick and choose what bits to take literally

J C

Jonny 72
Lets just say christianity was a flop and died off like a thousand other minor religions..

Do you think scientists would SCIENTIFICALLY come up with the theory that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, all the species crammed onto some sort of giant wooden boat, etc, etc?

…….but Christianity WASN’T a flop ……..it is objectively the faith with the MOST adherents Worldwide!!!!:cool:

……and, when it comes to Creation, you can add in the Jews and Moslems (who also accept the Creation Account).

Without the Bible, Scientists objectively examining the evidence, would conclude that the Earth was created recently and even a cursory look at the billions of dead things buried in rocklayers laid down by water all over the Earth, would confirm that a catastrophic Flood inundated all land on Earth and caused a mass extinction event.
Anthropologists could objectively establish, from the many similar accounts of diverse native peoples all the Earth, that Humans, land animals and birds were saved from this catastrophe on board some type of sailing vessel!!!!
Molecular Biologists could also confirm the ‘genetic bottleneck’ caused by this disaster and they could also establish that all of mankind is descended from ONE woman (‘Mitochodrial Eve’) and ONE man (Y-Chromosome Adam)!!!:D


Jonny 72
I think after centuries and centuries and centuries of sheer crap from religious nuts we've become hardwired just to shut them out. The earth is flat, you have to pay to get into heaven, they were witches anyway, stop that, put that down, no you can't eat that etc.

Scientologists, creationists, psychics, do they all share a common gene or something?

Yes indeed the World has always needed the truth…….and all of the above are examples of people not fully accepting the Word of God which demands that we LOVE one another and believe on Jesus Christ.:D


Jonny 72
Screw evolution

I have a screwdriver and a hammer here if you want them!!!!:D


The Mad Hatter
Er...I really don't think that anyone is claiming that we 'Spintaneously "Morphed" from Muck!!!!

The only Evolutionary alternative to ‘Spontaneous Evolution’ is the ‘Theistic’ variety!!!!!


The Mad Hatter
See, I told you not to make me laugh.

Plenty of people understand the theory of evolution. Some of them have gone to considerable lengths to explain it to you

I could also do with a laugh myself ……….so tell us HOW ‘Molecules to Man Evolution’ works !!!

I personally like the one about the Frog that morphed into a Prince……..and it is only outdone for me, by the story of the scale on the Dinosaur that grew into a feather, or was it a tooth????:D


pH
You still seem to be working off a science text written by bronze age cattle herders, surely some progress has been made in your science since then?

When it comes to determining how the heavy elements were created, there is not much scientific evidence to report!!!!

…….and the Evolutionist explanation that the metals were developed in million degree GASOUS explosions within stars stretches credulity to breaking point…..or should that be melting point!!!!:D


2Scoops
as conventionally qualified scientists, creation scientists are welcome to submit to conventionally peer-reviewed scientific journals. And some do. Then the quality of their research and conclusions are found wanting and rejected. Hence the need to establish their own 'special' peer-review process.

Many Scientists who are Creationists DO submit papers to peer reviewed scientific journals.
When the papers refer to non-Creation Science material they are almost invariably published …..
……..and when they refer to Creation Science material they are invariably NOT published!!!

…..hence the need to establish a Creation Science peer-review process!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
……so I guess I have the best of both worlds ….as a tentative Creation Scientist and an infallible Christian!!!!

2scoops
How amusing that you don't see this as a contradiction in terms.

…but there is NO contradiction…..as a Creation Scientist, I make tentative conclusions in relation to scientific explanations for various Biblical phenomena, like Noah’s Flood, while I enjoy the certainty of the infallible Word of God on all topics as they are described in the Bible.:)


Wicknight
By the way, sunset and sunrise isn't what is in the Bible. The sun stood still is what is described in the Bible.

That is no less easy to understand that stating that the Earth stopped rotating. Primary school children are taught that the Earth rotates.

Jos 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

The whole event is described from an Earth-based Frame of Reference……which is the most straightforward and appropriate Frame of Reference, given the fact that the event occurred on Earth and the target audience are Earth-bound peoples!!!!!!

Could I point out that Modern Science still routinely uses Earth-based Frames of Reference. For example, Astronomical Tables still publish ‘Sunset’ and ‘Sunrise’ timetables. We know that the sun never sets in a Space-based Frame of Reference – but it does ‘set’ and night-time comes within an Earth-based Frame of Reference!!!!

The other reason that Jos10:12-14 is phrased in the way that it is, was to show that God, not only controlled the Earth but the Sun and Moon as well – which was theologically important at a time when Sun and Moon worship were the most prevalent alternative religions in the Middle East, at that time!!!!:)


Wicknight
The BBC's meteorologists are inaccurate reporting the events as "sunrise" and "sunset", because they are using common terminology that originated in a time when humans genuinely believed that the sun did rise and the sun did set. They believed this because they didn't know any better.

If it’s good enough for the BBC (and the rest of science) then it is good enough for me!!!!

…and the term “sunrise” CONTINUES to be used (both scientifically and commonly) because it is a description from the most straightforward and appropriate Frame of Reference …… an Earth-based Frame of Reference!!!!

…..ditto for the description of the events in Jos 10:12-14.


Wicknight
It is only ordinary everyday language because no one in that time knew that the Earth was round and rotated

‘Sunrise’ was then, and CONTINUES to be ordinary everyday language because it is the most appropriate and straightforward description!!!!
……and you cannot logically claim that people using the term ‘sunrise’ don’t know that the Earth is round and rotating……
……indeed everyone who uses the term ‘sunrise’ KNOWs that the Earth is round and rotating……and that the sun itself ISN'T actually rising....but it appears to do so within an Earth-based Frame of reference!!!


Wicknight
I always thought it rather strange that theists believe in an omnipotent God, yet never seem to consider the idea that he might be just plain evil, or just having a laugh.

Indeed there are some religions that DO believe in such capricious / evil Gods……

…….however, Christians have the advantage that God revealed His perfect, loving and truthful nature via His directly inspired writings in the Bible and in His incarnation as Jesus Christ!!!:cool:

robindch

JC wrote:

If it’s good enough for the BBC (and the rest of science) then it is good enough for me!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/earth/evolutionrev4.shtml

It's at GCSE level, so you should be able to grasp some of it at least. Welcome to your new life in the reality-based community!

jonny72

I don't understand why many creationists stick to their guns about the universe being 6000 years old, I mean thats ALOT of science to take on..

Heres an example..
Light travels at a speed of 300,000 kph

So it takes light 8 minutes to reach Earth from the Sun..

That means when we observe the sun, we are observing what happened 8 minutes ago..

So you take the brightest star in the northern galaxy, cirus I think its called, that is 8 and a half light years away, which means light takes 8 and a half years to travel from cirus to earth...

Scientists have been observing stars that are millions of light years away, meaning events that happened millions of years ago...

Do the creationists refute this, or just change their story, or what?

Galvasean

jonny72 wrote:

I don't understand why many creationists stick to their guns about the universe being 6000 years old, I mean thats ALOT of science to take on..

I find it curious because literally some Irish monk decided to add up the numbers based on how long he perceived the people in the Bible to live for and how long events in the Bible took. He never took into account that maybe there were periods in time that the Bible didn't discuss because nothing noteworthy happened.
People just take his word for it which is odd, because there was nothing exceptionally divine about him.

robindch

Galvasean wrote:

He never took into account that maybe there were periods in time that the Bible didn't discuss because nothing noteworthy happened.

Neither, do I believe, did he take into account the possibility that the bible may have been inaccurate in what it did report.

Galvasean wrote:

People just take his word for it which is odd,

Not really. A lot of people are conditioned to accept uncritically whatever it is they're told the bible says, and all old Ussher was doing was tabulating information that was already there, so it shouldn't be a surprise that his work was (and still is) accepted by a few as, er, gospel. As a work of history, Ussher's chronology was about as good as could have been written at the time and in the absence of any technology more advanced than a candle and a magnifying glass.

BTW, Ussher was never a monk and amusingly for somebody who's now one of the minor deities in the creationist pantheon, eventually became the Primate of All Ireland.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

by the story of the scale on the Dinosaur that grew into a feather, or was it a tooth????:D

You really don't understand what evolution says do you :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

….and the Evolutionist explanation that the metals were developed in million degree GASOUS explosions within stars stretches credulity to breaking point…..or should that be melting point!!!!:D

"Evolutionists" don't explain that, physicists explain it that way, and have reproduced the effect in various experiments.

J C wrote:

…..hence the need to establish a Creation Science peer-review process!!!!

Yes I can imagine that for certain theists when other scientists show that you are wrong one does get frustrated and wishes to start up their own journals where they can print what they like without being troubled by the problems of accuracy or truth. Hence "Creation Science"

J C wrote:

The whole event is described from an Earth-based Frame of Reference……which is the most straightforward and appropriate Frame of Reference

Only if no one knows or understand that the Earth rotates.

You seem to think that these people were idiots and could not understand the simple concept of the rotation of the Earth if God decided to tell them.

pH

J C wrote:

When it comes to determining how the heavy elements were created, there is not much scientific evidence to report!!!!

…….and the Evolutionist explanation that the metals were developed in million degree GASOUS explosions within stars stretches credulity to breaking point…..or should that be melting point!!!!

Aren't you quick to divert the attention away from questions you can't (or won't) answer and throw a bit of mud at science?

Remember J C I'm asking questions about 'creation science', anyone is free to read back over this thread and view your claims for what it has achieved and what it is currently investigating.

So back to the point, how did this bronze age creation scientist determine that elements such as Iron were created on the third day? Does he have a method? Are there experiments? Did he write it up in a bronze age science journal? You're making the claims that this is all science. How does one follow his method to arrive at these conclusions? If he was able to pin the creation down to 'the third day', I'm surprised that given the progress that science normally makes, a few thousand years later creation scientists haven't been able to get a little more precise? Why not narrow it down to 'about tea time' on the third day?

Galvasean

You are wasting your time pH. After all this is a 'scientist' who believes a rhino is a dinosaur.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote:

You are wasting your time pH. After all this is a 'scientist' who believes a rhino is a dinosaur.

And believes that children mutate as they grow ...

Actually that could be a fun exercise, list all the stupid, ridiculous, bizarre, nonsense things JC has claimed on this thread

Another one: mutation kills the new life form

Dinosaurs were warm blooded mammals

Whole modern proteins randomly formed by pure chance

JC has a science degree

I could go on and on ...

robindch

hmm... my favourite was the time that he said that he knew evolution was false because he'd never seen the sun produce children.

2Scoops

J C wrote:

Many Scientists who are Creationists DO submit papers to peer reviewed scientific journals.
When the papers refer to non-Creation Science material they are almost invariably published …..
……..and when they refer to Creation Science material they are invariably NOT published!!!

…..hence the need to establish a Creation Science peer-review process!!!!

Lies or ignorance. Bad science invariably does not get published, regardless of its evolutionist/creationist agenda, if any. Indeed, top tier journals have an acceptance rate of less than 10% and trust me when I say the other 90% are not coming from creation science institutes. I speak from experience with both sides of the peer review system. I strongly suspect you speak from experience of neither.

Good science has nothing to fear from peer review. In fact, the peer review system was established to help and further science, not hold things back. It provides constructive criticism to each and every paper, no matter how poorly designed it may be.

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the masses of creation science that are not published because of biased peer-review. I doubt you have any. The feedback comments would be especially welcome - if something doesn't get published it's because it's bad science, not because it's controversial and feedback forms would explain why.

J C wrote:

…but there is NO contradiction…..as a Creation Scientist, I make tentative conclusions in relation to scientific explanations for various Biblical phenomena, like Noah’s Flood, while I enjoy the certainty of the infallible Word of God on all topics as they are described in the Bible.:)

There is a contradiction. Once again, I find it highly amusing that you are unable or unwilling to recognise it:D:):D:):rolleyes:

pH

Galvasean wrote:

You are wasting your time pH. After all this is a 'scientist' who believes a rhino is a dinosaur.

Every now and then I like to post in this thread all the same. I'm still not totally convinced after 6,000+ posts that J C believes what he posts here, and that he is not in fact a troll.

Some of his straw grabbing and explanations are just too random and off the wall to be taken seriously, if I had to bet one way or another I'd say troll but I'm enjoying making my mind up.

robindch wrote:

hmm... my favourite was the time that he said that he knew evolution was false because he'd never seen the sun produce children.

Wicknight wrote:

Actually that could be a fun exercise, list all the stupid, ridiculous, bizarre, nonsense things JC has claimed on this thread

Another one: mutation kills the new life form

Dinosaurs were warm blooded mammals

Whole modern proteins randomly formed by pure chance

JC has a science degree

I could go on and on ...

Galaxies are not clusters of stars light years away, they may indeed be small swirls of dust much closer to us.

and on and on ...

Some of his claims are so bizarre and unique that I can only hope that sitting out in Belfield is a bored physics post-grad who logs into boards a couple of times a week for a bit of a chuckle and to see how much of this we can take!

Asiaprod

pH wrote:

Every now and then I like to post in this thread all the same. I'm still not totally convinced after 6,000+ posts that J C believes what he posts here, and that he is not in fact a troll.

Some of his straw grabbing and explanations are just too random and off the wall to be taken seriously, if I had to bet one way or another I'd say troll but I'm enjoying making my mind up.

I enjoy it so much I could never stop the thread. There is a very positive aspect in that people like me who have vast gaps in our knowledge of the sciences have learned a lot from you guts. Keep it up.

My favorite has to be the "Carrion Lions":)
Keep it up JC, you are a real "Catalyst for seeking Knowledge"

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

hmm... my favourite was the time that he said that he knew evolution was false because he'd never seen the sun produce children.

LOL

J C

Robin
Welcome to your new life in the reality-based community!

You too, are welcome to reality, Robin…….with bells on it!!!:D


Jonny 72

Scientists have been observing stars that are millions of light years away, meaning events that happened millions of years ago...

Do the creationists refute this, or just change their story, or what?

These enormous estimated distances are based on fallible theories, like ‘red shift’ that are looking increasingly shaky – like everything else in the ‘Evolutionist World’!!!!!


Galvasean
I find it curious because literally some Irish monk decided to add up the numbers based on how long he perceived the people in the Bible to live for and how long events in the Bible took. He never took into account that maybe there were periods in time that the Bible didn't discuss because nothing noteworthy happened.

The descent from Adam to Noah’s son Shem is outlined in minute detail with double measures of each lineal descendant’s age in Genesis 5 – and it records that EXACTLY 1656 years elapsed between the Creation of Adam and The Flood.
Interestingly, ALL of Noah’s lineal antecedents had died before the Flood (with Methuselah the last to die in the year of the Flood.:)


Robin
Ussher was never a monk and amusingly for somebody who's now one of the minor deities in the creationist pantheon, eventually became the Primate of All Ireland.

Archbishop James Ussher was the PROTESTANT Primate of All Ireland ……….and one of the first students in Trinity College Dublin …. your own alma mater, I believe, Robin

Trinity honoured the 350th Anniversary Archbishop Ussher’s death, last year…….
…….did you attend any of the events, Robin????

Archbishop Ussher was also honoured by Trinity College, with the opening of the James Ussher Library in 2003 – great to see Trinity honouring such a magnificent Creationist and intellectual genus!!!!:)

robindch

JC wrote:

Archbishop James Ussher was [...] one of the first students in Trinity College Dublin …. your own alma mater, I believe, Robin

As seems to be the case with everything you believe, my friend, this too is wrong. If you page back through this thread you should find a posting in which I mentioned that I qualified from the University of Limerick in 1989 with an honors degree in engineering. When and where did you qualify, and in what?

zod

Hey J_C,

How much time ( approximately in days, months or years ) did Noah get to build his ark and collect all the animals ?

Also what help did he have ?

thanks

J C

robindch wrote:

If you page back through this thread you should find a posting in which I mentioned that I qualified from the University of Limerick in 1989 with an honors degree in engineering.

Perhaps, had you attended Trinity you might now have a more liberal attitude to Creationism in general and Archbishop Ussher in particular!!!:D

......you're never to late to start learning, however........

.......and your diligent studies on this thread is a good beginning!!!:eek:

CiDeRmAn

Redshift in stellar objects, a feature of the real world that describes how fast things are accellarating away is, in some way, shaky?
Umm, no, it's not.
It is a phenomenon that is explained amply by Einstein and is a type of doppler shift, as seen everyday in sound waves here on earth as a vehicle with a siren passes by, the sound beiing stretched and altered, as light wave are stretched to the red, this is pretty immutable as laws go, and its shaky?
The features of the universe around us are being explained, we can predict the results of experiments and find theories either agree or disagree with the physical results, if wrong we take the theory and investigate it, a constant self examination, so as to prevent bad science, like phrenology or, creationism for that matter, taking hold.

JC, what, if any, things has creation science predicted in the real world that has been seen to be a scientific fact? Has it predicted anything outside of your faith that the rest of us sceptics can take hold of?

And as for the formation of heavy elements in the nuclear fires of stars, whats so unlikely about that? I mean we can change elements from natural occuring ones like Uranium to artificial elements like Curium. So no mystery there, its something we can do here.
Its simply that, the sun, or any star for that matter can successfully fuse hydrogen into most elements, all the way down to iron, when things go al pear shaped and it goes, well, bang, this creates a large cloud of dust which goes on to fuel the next generation of stars, stellar evolution it's called. We then get a large body of material that condenses into a new star, with the new heavy materials creating the iron rich cores of planets that orbit, just like the iron core we have, suggesting, beyond all reasonable doubt, that this is the process we went through many millions of years ago.
We can see this process continuing around us, in nebulae, or remains of stellar detonations, where new stars are being born.
Heck, the ancient chinese astronomers saw a stellar explosion themselves and this gave rise to the Crab nebula.
So, proof there really.

Any errors please excuse and feel free to correct, just don't invoke gods or demons or magic spells please.

And JC, less smilies, it's quite juvenile and undermines any thpe of adult debate you want.

Galvasean

J C wrote:

The descent from Adam to Noah’s son Shem is outlined in minute detail with double measures of each lineal descendant’s age in Genesis 5 – and it records that EXACTLY 1656 years elapsed between the Creation of Adam and The Flood.
Interestingly, ALL of Noah’s lineal antecedents had died before the Flood (with Methuselah the last to die in the year of the Flood.:)

Yes, thats all very good. It says how long it took between Adam and Moses. Does it explain as clearly how much time there was between Moses and say Jesus? I'm just saying that perhaps the events in the Bible took place over longer periods than it is given credit for.

PDN

Galvasean wrote:

Yes, thats all very good. It says how long it took between Adam and Moses. Does it explain as clearly how much time there was between Moses and say Jesus? I'm just saying that perhaps the events in the Bible took place over longer periods than it is given credit for.

Actually a large number of Christians, including some of the most conservative theologically, contend that it is impossible to construct an accurate chronology of those times. This is because genealogies frequently skip generations and note only the most notable descendants.

BB Warfield, who was professor of polemical theology at Princeton, is regarded by most evangelicals as being the most redoubtable proponent of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. His book, The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures, is the classic definition of inerrancy. This is his take on the genealogies and chronology:

"These genealogies must be esteemed trustworthy for the purposes for which they are recorded; but they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for which they were not intended, and for which they are not adapted. In particular, it is clear that the genealogical purposes for which the genealogies were given, did not require a complete record of all the generations through which the descent of the persons to whom they are assigned runs; but only an adequate indication of the particular line through which the descent in question comes. Accordingly it is found on examination that the genealogies of Scripture are freely compressed for all sorts of purposes; and that it can seldom be confidently affirmed that they contain a complete record of the whole series of generations, while it is often obvious that a very large number are omitted. There is no reason inherent in the nature of the Scriptural genealogies why a genealogy of ten recorded links, as each of those in Genesis v. and xi. is, may not represent an actual descent of a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand links. The point established by the table is not that these are all the links which intervened between the beginning and the closing names, but that this is the line of descent through which one traces back to or down to the other.… "

"In a word, the Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge and between the deluge and the call of Abraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we may suppose any length of time to have intervened between these events which may otherwise appear reasonable. The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern."

J C

DerKaiser wrote:

J C,
The fact that you actually sit down and speculate on the numbers and species that entered the so called ark is scary, and the fact that somebody allowed you to become a scientist of any description is wholly abhorrent, fundamentalist fairy tale believers need to be extricated from politics and science where they do more harm than good, you are dangerous

DANGEROUS......a rather unfounded, loaded and emotive phrase to choose???

Just exactly how is a Christian who believes in the Biblical account of Creation DANGEROUS????

Could I remind you that I am a conventionally qualified scientist in good standing who has FULLY EARNED my qualifications .....and it is your advocacy of gross discrimination against Christians who are scientists that IS actually abhorrent!!!!

Hivemind187

J C wrote:

DANGEROUS......a rather unfounded, loaded and emotive phrase to choose???

Just exactly how is a Christian who believes in the Biblical account of Creation DANGEROUS????

Could I remind you that I am a conventionally qualified scientist in good standing who has FULLY EARNED my qualifications .....and it is your advocacy of gross discrimination against Christians who are scientists that IS actually abhorrent!!!!

Perhaps not dangerous but I certainly wouldnt trust any of your research, findings etc without having them checked, double checked and triple checked because you are openly admiting to accepting something utterly ludicrous and unsupported by the evidence.

Zombrex

Why do my posts keep getting deleted?

Am I not allowed say that JC isn't a scientist? Is that not a reasonable conclusion?

DapperGent

The evidence is damning yet circumstantial.

Zombrex

DapperGent wrote:

The evidence is damning yet circumstantial.

Yet he is allowed claim to be a scientist, and claim to bring the weight of this qualification to his posts, without ever answering the valid questions about his qualifications or even saying what they are ... strange ...

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Why do my posts keep getting deleted?

Am I not allowed say that JC isn't a scientist? Is that not a reasonable conclusion?

They are gettingdeleted because they are far more than you claiming that JC isn't a scientist.

They include phrases like the following:
You can "remind" us that you are a talking 2 headed chicken, it ain't going to make you being a scientists any more true.

I am getting a bit tired of the name calling.

JC has made it quite clear that he is not going to reveal his qualifications nor his identity. Respect his reasons for doing so.