Bible Study Matt. 25;46

[Edward]

And EVERYTHING you believe should be based on the bible.
The bible is our authority.
A person cannot make up his own theology....God has already explained Himself...
we only are left with learning about Him and His ways.

Truer words have never been spoken. Over time it is being shown to me that what you say is true. The Bible is our authority. (The Bible is not God/does not have a personality, etc..) but there seems to be a scripture for absolutely everything in this natural life.

God is pouring out His Spirit upon all flesh and the knowledge of God has been increasing all over the world. And sometimes people will say, everything isn't in the Bible...cell phones aren't in the Bible, and stuff like that. And when I have asked God for scriptures about things that don't seem to be in scripture...He still gives me scriptures, lol. So I think it's all in there. What is increasing is revelation and deeper meanings of scriptures. There is technology scriptures in there for instance.

We just can't read the scriptures alone anymore. We have to use the comforter/teacher/guide/Holy Spirit as our tutor while we read. :wink

 

[GodsGrace]

Truer words have never been spoken. Over time it is being shown to me that what you say is true. The Bible is our authority. (The Bible is not God/does not have a personality, etc..) but there seems to be a scripture for absolutely everything in this natural life.

God is pouring out His Spirit upon all flesh and the knowledge of God has been increasing all over the world. And sometimes people will say, everything isn't in the Bible...cell phones aren't in the Bible, and stuff like that. And when I have asked God for scriptures about things that don't seem to be in scripture...He still gives me scriptures, lol. So I think it's all in there. What is increasing is revelation and deeper meanings of scriptures. There is technology scriptures in there for instance.

We just can't read the scriptures alone anymore. We have to use the comforter/teacher/guide/Holy Spirit as our tutor while we read. :wink

Hi Ed,
I'll take this opportunity to say that this is what Paul meant about being under the Law
and being under Grace.

The Law would have to tell us every little thing we can and cannot do...which is pretty much what is written of in
the Torah. All the 613 Laws.

But Grace teaches our heart how to be, what to think, and how to behave.
This is Grace. It is knowing what God wants from us without our even having to check it out in the bible.

But how do we get there, to this place?
By reading - and every time we read we learn something new.
The Holy Spirit is our helper - this is one of His works.
If we read the bible simply and without prior indoctrination, God speaks to us.

But teachers are good too!
I've learned a lot from different sources, even right here on this forum.
I've learned from Jethro and Jim Parker and JLB and For His Glory and OzSpen
and others.

You mentioned technology. Paul said not to become drunk in Ephesians 5:18.
Alcohol can control us. Anything that can control us is dangerous.
It can be anything.

And in this same way, the bible does seem to me to speak to everything we might wonder about.

 

[Quantrill]

I won't be posting to you anymore.
But, up above you're again stating that your idea of Unconditional Election is different than the calvinists.
Then you should stop calling it unconditional election since, as I've said, it means something specific.

And EVERYTHING you believe should be based on the bible.
The bible is our authority.
A person cannot make up his own theology....God has already explained Himself...
we only are left with learning about Him and His ways.

The election I see in the Scripture is 'unconditional'. It is just not that of the Calvinist's.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Nice of you Quantrill.

Tell you what...
post some scripture that explains what you're talking about.
I KNOW I'll understand that.

Go to post #(188). Tell me where you need the Scripture for what I have said.

Quantrill

 

[humble soul]

And EVERYTHING you believe should be based on the bible.
The bible is our authority.
A person cannot make up his own theology....God has already explained Himself

Problem being that one authority is interpreted into many authorities. And those many authorities swear their interpretation is the best authority.
What about Church Fathers? Like Augustine. Thomas Aquinas. Not that I've read much of these guys. But their interpretation of the Bible is surely respected. They were enormous intellectuals who obviously had some divine inspiration
Edit sorry Aquinas was not a church father
Irinaeus?

 

[JLB]

The election I see in the Scripture is 'unconditional'. It is just not that of the Calvinist's.

Quantrill

Election for purpose is unconditional.

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:1-5

• of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

The purpose in the context of Romans 9 is the lineage of Christ. Through whom God chose to bring forth Hs Son into the world.


But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
Romans 9:6-9

• “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

God chose Issac, not Ishmael, to be the lineage through whom He would Bring His Son into the world.


This foreshadows the miracle birth of Christ through which God Himself brought forth His promise to pass, according to His will and not the will of man.



That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.


Children of promise being the “seed” the lineage of Christ, not “children of God” verses “children of the devil”.


Ishmael was not a child of the devil but was blessed.




JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Go to post #(188). Tell me where you need the Scripture for what I have said.

Quantrill

Quantrill
First, if y ou're going to call it UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION....
then you have to understand it the way it is meant and understood by everyone.
Do you agree with this? You can't change the meaning of a word or phrase.

Second, I did go back to post 188 and here's what you said:
your words in green.
My reply is in black.


Well, at this stage I am convinced that I hold to unconditional election, and that it is not the same as Calvinist's. I probably wasn't clear enough when describing it, but I was trying to be brief.
Don't call it unconditional election.
Just describe how you understand God chooses persons to be saved.
What is the method?
Does YOUR will have anything to do with it?

In other words, in my view of the 'elect', they are not elect because God knows the future and sees who will turn to Him. They are elect, because they are of God. They have always been of God. Adam and Eve were the first two elect. Of God. And from them the whole family of the elect would come. God's people.
What do you mean "they are elect because they are of God"?
Isn't everyone from Adam and Eve?
Was there someone else in the Garden besides them and God?

Due to the fall of Adam, the elect were now 'lost' or separated from God. But also due to the fall, another seed line was introduced into mankind. A seed line not of God.
Which seed line would this be?
Aren't all men from Adam?

They are not 'lost' as they were never of God. They are children of the devil as opposed to children of God. The kingdoms of this world is their home as their father is the prince of this world.
I agree that this world is the Kingdom of satan, the prince of the air.
Ephesians 2:2

Therefore, all of the lost, the elect, will be saved.
The lost are not the elect.
The lost will not be saved.
The above sentence makes no sense to me. (no offense)

God chose the method by which those who are His would come into this salvation. This was/is through the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing them and their faith being exercised. (2 Thess. 2:13).
Agreed.
I don't think we understand 2 Thess. 2:13 the same way.
Could you explain it more?

This does not discount 'unconditional election'. Just because God chooses the means, does not mean it is 'conditional election'.
If God chooses the means, then it is CONDITIONAL election. So, yes, it does mean it is conditional.
Conditional means that God chooses the method and your salvation is CONDITIONAL on your accepting God's method.

It is unconditional because there are those who God is going to save, Whom He has chosen, Who are and always have been His. They will exercise faith because God opens their eyes to Him.
Here you're saying that God not only chooses THE MEANS by which someone is saved....
You're stating that God actually chooses WHO will be saved.
Did I understand you?

Much more can be said, but I think it is enough to show that I do hold to 'unconditional election' but it is not the same as Calvinist's.
If there are those that God is going to save, Whom He has chosen, then you're description of unconditional election is THE SAME as Calvin's.
If not, then you have to really explain why it seem different to you.

You don't have to do this to convince me...but it would be good for you to adhere to a Christianity that is biblical.
(I'm not saying you're not - I really don't understand what you believe).

 

[Quantrill]

Quantrill
First, if y ou're going to call it UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION....
then you have to understand it the way it is meant and understood by everyone.
Do you agree with this? You can't change the meaning of a word or phrase.

Second, I did go back to post 188 and here's what you said:
your words in green.
My reply is in black.


Well, at this stage I am convinced that I hold to unconditional election, and that it is not the same as Calvinist's. I probably wasn't clear enough when describing it, but I was trying to be brief.
Don't call it unconditional election.
Just describe how you understand God chooses persons to be saved.
What is the method?
Does YOUR will have anything to do with it?

In other words, in my view of the 'elect', they are not elect because God knows the future and sees who will turn to Him. They are elect, because they are of God. They have always been of God. Adam and Eve were the first two elect. Of God. And from them the whole family of the elect would come. God's people.
What do you mean "they are elect because they are of God"?
Isn't everyone from Adam and Eve?
Was there someone else in the Garden besides them and God?

Due to the fall of Adam, the elect were now 'lost' or separated from God. But also due to the fall, another seed line was introduced into mankind. A seed line not of God.
Which seed line would this be?
Aren't all men from Adam?

They are not 'lost' as they were never of God. They are children of the devil as opposed to children of God. The kingdoms of this world is their home as their father is the prince of this world.
I agree that this world is the Kingdom of satan, the prince of the air.
Ephesians 2:2

Therefore, all of the lost, the elect, will be saved.
The lost are not the elect.
The lost will not be saved.
The above sentence makes no sense to me. (no offense)

God chose the method by which those who are His would come into this salvation. This was/is through the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing them and their faith being exercised. (2 Thess. 2:13).
Agreed.
I don't think we understand 2 Thess. 2:13 the same way.
Could you explain it more?

This does not discount 'unconditional election'. Just because God chooses the means, does not mean it is 'conditional election'.
If God chooses the means, then it is CONDITIONAL election. So, yes, it does mean it is conditional.
Conditional means that God chooses the method and your salvation is CONDITIONAL on your accepting God's method.

It is unconditional because there are those who God is going to save, Whom He has chosen, Who are and always have been His. They will exercise faith because God opens their eyes to Him.
Here you're saying that God not only chooses THE MEANS by which someone is saved....
You're stating that God actually chooses WHO will be saved.
Did I understand you?

Much more can be said, but I think it is enough to show that I do hold to 'unconditional election' but it is not the same as Calvinist's.
If there are those that God is going to save, Whom He has chosen, then you're description of unconditional election is THE SAME as Calvin's.
If not, then you have to really explain why it seem different to you.

You don't have to do this to convince me...but it would be good for you to adhere to a Christianity that is biblical.
(I'm not saying you're not - I really don't understand what you believe).

I already told you in post #(188) concerning the will. Why do you ask me again?

Everyone being from Adam and Eve doesn't mean everyone is from God. Where did you get that idea? And yes another was in the garden...satan. Is that news to you?

I already told you which seed line in post #(188). Why do you ask me again? The seed line of satan. Again, just because all are from Adam doesn't make them of God. Many are of satan. As I explained which you apparently ignore.

I just did explain (2 Thess. 2:13) in post #(188). What is so difficult for you to understand?

No, it doesn't mean election is conditional. It means salvation is based upon the individual believing. That doesn't affect election. Election means this one will be saved, and so will be brought to Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

God's choosing is based upon His knowing who are His. He knows who are His. God's choosing is not based on any knowledge of the future that He takes a peek at and so chooses who He saw turned to Him.

Whether you understand me or not, matters not to me. I have seen this type of argument paraded before. "Just help me out here, I am trying to understand" Sure.

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

Problem being that one authority is interpreted into many authorities. And those many authorities swear their interpretation is the best authority.
What about Church Fathers? Like Augustine. Thomas Aquinas. Not that I've read much of these guys. But their interpretation of the Bible is surely respected. They were enormous intellectuals who obviously had some divine inspiration
Edit sorry Aquinas was not a church father
Irinaeus?

Two comments HS...
I used to be very involved in the CC and I know for sure that when a question arose,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church was consulted and not the bible...although
bible studies have been started even over here. In a way I do agree with you though.
Every church feels they have it right --- I feel like every denomination got something or other
wrong - it's just that some wrongs are more important than others. I'm depending on a
merciful God.

Irenaeus was an ECF.
He heard preaching from Polycarp...
who knew John the Apostle

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I like Ignatius of Antioch better.
He was a disciple of John the Apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I must say that I don't care for Augustine. He was an enormous intellectual, as you've stated,
but he spent 10 years as a manechaen gnostic and brought some of those teachings to the church.
He changed his mind of a couple of important topics so you always have to ask what period of his
life people are discussing. He's the hero of Calvin and other reformers because they base
predestination on Augustine. I've studied with a Catholic monk who states that Augustine did NOT
believe in double predestination --- but, logically, that's all that could exist if one believes God is
deterministic. Anyway, I don't classify him as an ECF...as far as I'm concerned, that era ended in 325 AD
after the Council of Nicea when the church became involved with the Roman government.

I DO look to the ECF's when I have a question about something that is not clear to me.

 

[GodsGrace]

I already told you in post #(188) concerning the will. Why do you ask me again?

Everyone being from Adam and Eve doesn't mean everyone is from God. Where did you get that idea? And yes another was in the garden...satan. Is that news to you?

I already told you which seed line in post #(188). Why do you ask me again? The seed line of satan. Again, just because all are from Adam doesn't make them of God. Many are of satan. As I explained which you apparently ignore.

I just did explain (2 Thess. 2:13) in post #(188). What is so difficult for you to understand?

No, it doesn't mean election is conditional. It means salvation is based upon the individual believing. That doesn't affect election. Election means this one will be saved, and so will be brought to Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

God's choosing is based upon His knowing who are His. He knows who are His. God's choosing is not based on any knowledge of the future that He takes a peek at and so chooses who He saw turned to Him.

Whether you understand me or not, matters not to me. I have seen this type of argument paraded before. "Just help me out here, I am trying to understand" Sure.

Quantrill

God created Adam and Eve.

Everyone else was born by their parents.

I don't understand you because you make statements that I do NOT find in the bible, beginning with Genesis.
You also contradict yourself. For instance, sentence 6 above makes no sense to me.

Since it matters not to you if other Christians understand you...
please stop posting to me about this. It leads me to believe you ARE interested and instead you're not.

 

[humble soul]

Two comments HS...
I used to be very involved in the CC and I know for sure that when a question arose,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church was consulted and not the bible...although
bible studies have been started even over here. In a way I do agree with you though.
Every church feels they have it right --- I feel like every denomination got something or other
wrong - it's just that some wrongs are more important than others. I'm depending on a
merciful God.

Irenaeus was an ECF.
He heard preaching from Polycarp...
who knew John the Apostle

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I like Ignatius of Antioch better.
He was a disciple of John the Apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I must say that I don't care for Augustine. He was an enormous intellectual, as you've stated,
but he spent 10 years as a manechaen gnostic and brought some of those teachings to the church.
He changed his mind of a couple of important topics so you always have to ask what period of his
life people are discussing. He's the hero of Calvin and other reformers because they base
predestination on Augustine. I've studied with a Catholic monk who states that Augustine did NOT
believe in double predestination --- but, logically, that's all that could exist if one believes God is
deterministic. Anyway, I don't classify him as an ECF...as far as I'm concerned, that era ended in 325 AD
after the Council of Nicea when the church became involved with the Roman government.

I DO look to the ECF's when I have a question about something that is not clear to me.

Hey you are well informed on this.
Thanks wondering

 

[Quantrill]

God created Adam and Eve.

Everyone else was born by their parents.

I don't understand you because you make statements that I do NOT find in the bible, beginning with Genesis.
You also contradict yourself. For instance, sentence 6 above makes no sense to me.

Since it matters not to you if other Christians understand you...
please stop posting to me about this. It leads me to believe you ARE interested and instead you're not.

I am interested in making myself clear in what I believe. I am not interested in those who say they don't understand after I have made myself clear.

So? God created Adam and Eve and others were born to them. What does that have to do with what I said.

For sake of not misunderstanding, quote sentence 6 that makes no sense to you.

I asked you in post #(204) to tell me where you need Scripture for what I said.

Show me the contradictions I have made.

I have shown you that my understanding of unconditional election is different than Calvinist's.

Quantrill

 

[GodsGrace]

I am interested in making myself clear in what I believe. I am not interested in those who say they don't understand after I have made myself clear.

If others are saying they don't understand you, there must be a reason.
You speak in your posts about seed, being a different seed. You call it the seed line of satan. What exactly does this mean? Do you have a verse?
You say some belong to God and others do not. Who are the ones that do not belong to God?

For sake of not misunderstanding, quote sentence 6 that makes no sense to you.

From post no. 208...here is sentence 6:

"No, it doesn't mean election is conditional. It means salvation is based upon the individual believing. That doesn't affect election. Election means this one will be saved, and so will be brought to Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

First you say it doesn't mean that election is conditional.
Then you say it is based upon the individual believing ---- this makes it conditional.
Then you say something or other does not affect election.
Then you state election means one will be saved and so will be brought to Christ through sanctification.

A person is brought to Christ through believing; through faith. Ephesians 2:8
THEN a person is sanctified --- set apart for God. 2 Timothy 2:21

Also, you don't explain what you mean by ELECTION.

I asked you in post #(204) to tell me where you need Scripture for what I said.

Show me the contradictions I have made.

My comments above are a good start.

I have shown you that my understanding of unconditional election is different than Calvinist's.

Quantrill

And I have told you MANY times that if you use the term UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
it MUST match the description Calvin gave to it. You cannot make up your own language....
It's very confusing to others.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Some of those people are good company. Know how to enjoy life and have fun. Whereas Heaven might be full of dull partypoopers.

That's funny.
Actually, in hell there won't be any "good company".
There will be full time groaning about being in hell.
In heaven, with our new bodies, God will make us all compatible, there won't be any dull company.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Imagine humble soul , you'll be just like wondering .

Hahjahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[GodsGrace]

Imagine humble soul , you'll be just like wondering .

Hahjahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

What?
Good company?



We know that there will be no partying in hell.
We make fun of this at times on these threads,
but I don't. Hell is a real place and it will not be pleasant.
God gave us the way out, and I just wish that everyone
would accept it. I say wish, and not pray, because I think
that maybe our prayers in this regard may not be effective.
I'm not sure. Does the bible say to pray for persons salvation??

 

[WIP]

What?
Good company?



We know that there will be no partying in hell.
We make fun of this at times on these threads,
but I don't. Hell is a real place and it will not be pleasant.
God gave us the way out, and I just wish that everyone
would accept it. I say wish, and not pray, because I think
that maybe our prayers in this regard may not be effective.
I'm not sure. Does the bible say to pray for persons salvation??

Do you think those in hell will realize what has happened and they are apart from God? I'm thinking this could be a strong possibility for in order to understand the anguish one must know the difference. What are your thoughts?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

What?
Good company?



We know that there will be no partying in hell.
We make fun of this at times on these threads,
but I don't. Hell is a real place and it will not be pleasant.
God gave us the way out, and I just wish that everyone
would accept it. I say wish, and not pray, because I think
that maybe our prayers in this regard may not be effective.
I'm not sure. Does the bible say to pray for persons salvation??

A company always on the run
A destiny, oh it's the rising sun
I was born, a shotgun in my hands
Behind the gun
I'll make my final stand, yeah
That's why they call me
Bad company
I can't deny
Bad, bad company
'Til the day I die
Until the day I die
Until the day I die
Rebel souls
Deserters we've been called
Chose a gun
And threw away the song
Now these towns
Well they all know our name
The Death Punch sound
Is our claim of fame
And that's why they call me
Bad company
I can't deny
Bad, bad company
'Til the day I die
Until the day I die
Until the day I die
Until the day I die
"Eye for an eye"
"Tooth for a tooth"
"Blood for…

New York City's "Bad Company"

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you think those in hell will realize what has happened and they are apart from God? I'm thinking this could be a strong possibility for in order to understand the anguish one must know the difference. What are your thoughts?

I agree with you and believe that in hell persons will know that they are separated from God.
This anguish, as you've stated, certainly is part of the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 22:13
And also, remember the story that Jesus told of those in Hades in Luke 16:19-31
Luke 16:24, 25, 26, 28

19“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.
20“And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,
21and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.
22“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
23“In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
24“And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’
25“But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
26‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’
27“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—
28for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29“But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’
30“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’
31“But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

​

 

[Quantrill]

If others are saying they don't understand you, there must be a reason.
You speak in your posts about seed, being a different seed. You call it the seed line of satan. What exactly does this mean? Do you have a verse?
You say some belong to God and others do not. Who are the ones that do not belong to God?


From post no. 208...here is sentence 6:

"No, it doesn't mean election is conditional. It means salvation is based upon the individual believing. That doesn't affect election. Election means this one will be saved, and so will be brought to Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

First you say it doesn't mean that election is conditional.
Then you say it is based upon the individual believing ---- this makes it conditional.
Then you say something or other does not affect election.
Then you state election means one will be saved and so will be brought to Christ through sanctification.

A person is brought to Christ through believing; through faith. Ephesians 2:8
THEN a person is sanctified --- set apart for God. 2 Timothy 2:21

Also, you don't explain what you mean by ELECTION.



My comments above are a good start.

And I have told you MANY times that if you use the term UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
it MUST match the description Calvin gave to it. You cannot make up your own language....
It's very confusing to others.

Well there is of course always a reason. That doesn't mean they/you don't understand. They could just be playing ignorance as they have no other way to respond to the evidence given. You know..."help me out here, I just want to understand".

The seed line of satan means....the seed line of satan. (Gen. 3:15) And it was produced immediately in Adams first born. (1John 3:12) Later you see them in many of the Pharisees. (John 8:41) (8:42) (8:44) (8:47) (10:26) The ones not of God, don't belong to God. The ones of satan, don't belong to God.

I don't know how you got sentence 6 out of that. No matter. Yes, just because God created the means whereby one is saved, faith in Christ, doesn't make election conditional. You are confusing the act of salvation with election. Before one places faith in Christ, they are already elect. Because they are elect, they place faith in Christ. Because they are of God, they place faith in Christ. You see? Of course not.

I certainly did explain what I mean by election. See 2nd paragraph from the bottom in post #(208)

Your comments didn't reveal any contradiction on my part. Again, show me the contradictions you accuse me of.

The election I hold to is unconditional election. That doesn't mean it has to match what Calvin views as unconditional election. If my election matched Calvins views, then I would be a Calvinist. That is why I have told you that it doesn't. You want me to match with Calvin, for some unknown reason. But I don't.

No, it is just confusing to you because you are so geared against Calvinism that any unconditional election must be of Calvin. Yours is a Pavlov's dog response and refuse to react any other way.

Quantrill