socks

Geico's a good company, that's good to hear on the service and claims end! I'm into the Gecko too, their commercials are worth having the TV on. My wife knows one of their corporate PR Media folks and let her know I love the G-guy. I got sent some Geico Gecko stuff, including a - yes - a Gecko hand puppet!!!!! and other cool accessories!

Thanks Wolf - and here's the versese I was thinking of - 1 Cor. 10:23, 24- All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor's good. The context is important - it's making a case for what the intent is and the aim of a thing done. Offerings to "idols" have nothing (less I suppose) to do with what the offering is and what is or isn't permissible by way of kinds of things offered, the real issue is the offering being done to an "idol". At this point the verses are simply stating that something can be "okay" but may not be good to do. Duh. It's okay to eat food, but not food that's poisonous. Why? You die. Okay to drink wine but not get drunk and beat your parakeet. Why? Your brain hurts later and the parakeet will repress the memories, join a street gang, rob and steal, do dope, and someday have Little 'Keets that will do worse. It's okay to murder, but not murder a friend - wait! There's a law against that, friends or enemies. Murder isn't okay. So it doesn't take a long ruler to measure the parameters of what's being spoken about. "All" things aren't anything. The logic is simple, common sense and doesn't require a theological microscope to understand. Moreover there's clarification on the breadth of application - Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor's good. It may be "okay" for you but if it harms another in some way, don't do it. This verse can't be applied, understood or used to support that any action can be okay, but just make sure it's between trusted friends and allies who understand and won't be "harmed" but will be "mature" enough to understand. In the author's world, it doesn't matter if it's a pig, goat, tomato or cracker - if it's offered in idolatrous effort (if it breaks another "law" or rule) or/and if it causes another harm, it's wrong. Don't do it. In fact, it's a great verse for Tree Huggers and other do-gooders, since it's inferring that a "Christian" not only do right by his neighbor but look out for them. "My brother's keeper", indeed. People sit in their rooms alone or get together with a few "trusted" friends and get toasted and assume it's okay. Is it? You can poke your own eye out till you can't see - is it okay? Do I just watch and understand? Grab a pencil? Only a fool will err in the answer. * Lest this get the whole rant moved to the Popsicle Stand forum I better make some effort to relate to the original post in a less than obtuse fashion - hypocrisy isn't limited to religious followers, human nature says one thing and does another ("I'm on a diet - well, maybe one piece won't hurt...") Everyone makes their own allowances and this young lady is probably not thinking that a few lost brain cells matter at her age. So the whole party-on deal may be just related to a youthful lack of foresight. Or, if it's related to any "biblical" excuse, this is meant to provide some insight into why that is - bulls--t, a religious term for baseless.

2007 VW Jetta - great performance, mileage. 1996 Ford Exploder - good for pullin' the ol' popup and whenever I need to load up. Runs good, no complaints. 1996 Honda Civic - the boy drives it, got it new, been a super reliable ride. He's also got a - think it's '94 Mitsubishi Spider, convertible. Clutch is raggedy, needs work, but a sweet li'l ride. The girl drives a 1986 Subaru Brat. Stick, no power nothin'. She likes it, it's a work in progress, runs good, fun car. Earlier this year wesold a Chrysler Concorde, 1996, great car. Drove it for several years. Got it off a fleet sale, and would still have it but my commute increased and the gas and upkeep was killing me. Ran good though and held up well. We just got the VW Jetta this year, from Enterprise Fleet sales. I was looking at another Honda but the dealership got a brain transplant since I'd been there last and the whole sales "service" sucked, otherwise I'd have bought from them. I like Hondas over most all American cars in the same arena. "Marin Honda", in Marin, California. Idiots. They treated me like a wad of gum, and when we "went in" didn't even offer me the .0 per cent financing deal they were running - I showed them my credit rating sheet and they started talking options quickly, and I left. Service is number one in my book. I hate to dread dealing with a place because they're a-holes. So I go where I'm treated well and that's where I buy if I can get what I want. The VW and the Toyota Corolla, and the Honda Civic were all cars I felt good about.The Jetta was a little more $ but mileage is 31-32 per gallon, and while it's not the fastest off the dime it's got some serious go in the get up department, so it's a good freeway car. City too, very comfortable and the logic of the interior is good, it's easy to drive in and operate compared to others IMO.

That's true - remember the "if you can handle it" logic? That reasoning allowed a person to go further "out" of the moral and ethical boxes of man's making if, if IF they and those around them weren't offended or viewed what was being done as wrong, IE "sin". By rounding corners off some otherwise very straightforward instructions and commandments from the N.T. it allowed for a wide range of behavior to take place. There is a very shakey biblical basis for that interpretation, the "make a brother stumble" stuff and a few other places, I forget, I'd have to look 'em up. But it has strong limitations - logically a rule can't be broken and protected by another if both rules are required. Those parts of the bible used to cover freedoms and liberalities actually lead a person towards restriction rather than allowance because everyone is required to not only behave in a brother or sisters best interests, it's also recommended they behave in a manner that doesn't give them a "stumblingblock". So it's kind of like the bible is really saying "you can do whatever you want as long as you obey the spirit of the law of life in Christ, walk in love, never cause a brother to stumble by what you do and speak in a way that edifies others, and worship God in a manner that befits the great forgiveness and grace He's bestowed on you while always remembering that it's just as important what you think and feel, along with what you do. And then, yeah - then whatever you want, go for it. S0 - pretty much whatever a person allows for themselves that they feel is "okay" but might be offensive to others - guess what? I'd never know about it because they're keeping it personal and limited in scope and activity. So if you're hearing about it, something's wrong. And you ALWAYS hear about it. Ever notice that? Hmmm...there must be a pattern there and possibly something to learn from that, maybe - no. Nope. Naaaaw! This explains so much if ex-Wayfers and Wayfers alike would understand it. These ex-Wayfer Rev's who constantly can't keep it in their pants, or can't stay married or have one debacle after another - the message from God is... Take a hint. CHANGE WHAT YOU'RE DOING and CHANGE THE RESULTS. DUMMY! It AIN'T WORKING! YOU THINK IT IS BUT YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE! That's a pretty linear wordy post but I hope it makes some sense. Wayfers that have absorbed that "do it if it feels good just hide it" philosophy by trickle down influence are all wet. If she's gotten a swig of that thinking, take her to task over it and try to understand how in the world she really got to that conclusion. Otherwise - the drinks are on her!

If I'm reading you right Brush, this is more of a personal concern on your part, than a TWI policies and procedures question. That said - I'd agree that drinking, smoking pot and "partying" around isn't the highest level for any lifestyle, Christian or otherwise. But people do it, that are members of churches and go to church and probably consider themselves Christian. TWI has it's share, although they're experts at rationalizing and explaining away immoral and unethical behavior. But then, who isn't? One man's ceiling is another man's garage. People do what they will. She may not be a product of that though, what she does may have nothing to do with her TWI affiliations, for or against. You'd have to get that from her, how she feels her lifestyle is informed by what she really believes, TWI, etc. There was some discussion on one of those Wayfer boards where the quesiton came up about "what about pot, is it okay?" A lot of them were students, and I'd been reading in on the board for awhile and that intrigued me. There were a lot of weezy responses about the bible and what was best and what wasn't. I've only posted once and that was it. I'd say to her and anyone the same thing - Pot's an illegal drug. Buying it puts the average "street" user one level away from some pretty nasty and dangerous people. Until it's completely legal and distribution channels for it are above board, it's breaking the law to buy it, use it and sell it, to varying degrees, and it's probably supporting some highly illegal activity a level or two into the distribution chain. Medicinal uses aside, there's little to recommend it. Oh yeah - you get "high". I got no response on that board to my post and the thread died after that. I didn't quote any verses from the bible though, so their brains might have fogged over upon reading "words".

Great topic. Marriage is a choice and we learn to live with our choices throughout life. A way to view divorce could be from the eye of staying married, learning how to live with who we've chosen. This is a view I recommend to people, as far as it will take them. Except...I dunno. I can easily see exceptions, like some of those noted here. I think that the idea of marriage as an "institution" and a union formed and set in place by God puts it in a very serious context. It's a wonderful celebration when young and old alike are married, and at the same time there's a tremendous significance to the relationship between a man and a woman marrying and their committment to one another. When done "before God", God is witness to the union. It can't be a good thing to toss that witness aside when vows have been made before Him. Marriage forms a view into how God sees his relationship with His people and the continuance of life. So it stands to reason that God wouldn't cotten to the idea of men (or women for that matter) marrying young, living amiss, divorcing, marrying again and even again, putting out the old mate and bringing in the new younger one, the "starter" wives and the "trophy" wives later. All of that would be counter to the solidity and union of a constant growing relationship with one another. In Malachai 2 it says God hates "putting away", and those priests were living as many people do today, with the way they were living. Jesus's own disciples struggled with His description of marriage and what was kosher and what wasn't with divorce. "Better to not even marry!" Which is a good point - it shouldn't be something entered into casually because the intent should be that it's going to last. But it is VERY significant that it's not in the "Top 10" commandments, but adultery is, yes. Yes! Not committing adultery means staying faithful. And I can clearly see the coorelation made in the O.T. as to faithfulness between people and God. If two join and stay together the bascs of a successful marriage are in place. Adultery is the opposite of that and would threaten the union, obviously. But we live in forgiveness and indeed "grace". What's been joined and separated can come back together. But if one goes off for good and doesn't honor the committment in their actions and refuses, divorce, a final separation is inevitable. How to proceed from there - I could only guess carefully, if only from the wisdom gained and do our best to have a marriage that falls into the context of God's intents - love, faith, respect, consideration and faithfulness. I think Jesus's statements about it are so clear and strong that it places the correct emphasis on the "marriage vow" that we are to have. At the core is how we think and then how we act. Our "hearts" and then what comes out of them in actions. We can't break one rule and expect to fix it because we keep another. I don't think it was ever in the context of marriage that a man or woman could horribly mistreat the other or do wrong to each other or their children and that the marriage would stay intact. The marriage itself as a union is broken by the behavior of the people - "adultery" wouldn't be the only just cause. I think "God's view" of a continuing marriage assumes that the basic ground rules of an honest, just life are in place. At the same time that doesn't mean IMO that the original vow is without strength or meaning - even if entered into frivolously, that's playing with fire right from the start. I'd say it's the most serious "contract" two people can enter into, one with a value in and of itself. It could end up like having gold bars and using them for door stops - but the bars are still gold regardless what they're used for.

Truly, a generation of swine. And this one could use some lipstick. Mid-Life Crises from H-ell? goes terribly awry? Talkiing bibles? What's got this guy jumping through hoops, besides the Girl's Basketball team? He may appeal on several levels -those who don't want anything remotely like what the bible teaches and can feel good about themselves next to this pig. Or there may be some who figure hey. I have too much money. I need to waste some. Many possibilities but none that don't make me want to take a brisk shower after considering them. --------------- these quotes from the article - incredible! In 2002, three weeks after the death of his wife, Scott, who was then 55, stood before the congregation and announced that the Bible instructed him as a high priest to take a virgin bride from the faithful. A week later, he did -- a pretty 20-year-old who a couple of years earlier had been a star basketball player on the church high school team. Scott said he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of church funds on a fleet of race cars and until last year devoted many weekends touring the circuit for his "racing ministry." Scott is Calvary's "apostle" and presiding elder, and in 1996, he named himself the sole trustee, putting him in charge of virtually all of the church's operations, its theology and finances. -----------------

Just a suggestion that might help you sort through your thoughts on this, and services in general - have you ever attended an Episcopal church service? If not or it's been awhile where a formal order of service is observed it might be a refreshing experience. Generally they're very friendly folks, but mileage varies on that as with anything I'm sure. Couple links below for reference on both Episcopal and Anglican. (I'm not a card carrying member of either brand and collect no commission for new recruits, it's just a thought that hit me while reading here) http://anglicansonline.org/basics/expect.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Chu...ates_of_America I get a little weirded out by overt displays at church services myself, if it gets out of hand, or what I consider loud or noisy. On the other hand I can appreciate the friendly trust that allows for that kind of expression. I know why it's odd to me at times and that's because I like to have the time at a service for reflection and both spiritual invigoration and relaxation. I've been at services where people start having what I call "moments" and frankly I'm not sure that what's going on is doing them any good. Nobody's getting hurt or anything but my sense of the environment in those kinds of situations at times has been that they're more chaotic than purposeful. Which isn't automatically a bad thing. Chaos can be bad of course but can also be part of a natural process of something or things coming into order in a way that needs to run it's course and won't if controlled by an imposed process. Anyhoo - your comfort and edification needs (sounds kinda clinical there ) will vary from others. Seek...and you will find. :)

Knowledge Tickler! Thanks for the illumination!

All things being equal, Limburg's radio broadcast could be on Auto repair, Home improvment or Investing - if the man's a bug he brings his buginess with him. Nothing political about it. Plus as noted by Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly" remake - insects don't have politics. Which is weird, tics being insects. But they apparently don't. So even if I wanted to be, I can't be political with Limbug, or he might try to just eat me or sumpin'.

That's funny Seth! I wish somebody would kick those Wayfers asz. Maybe Paw could change the name of this site just to bug 'em - "GreaseWay" or something.

I SUPPOSE it's unChristian of me to see the humor in that Rocky, but it's pretty damdingit funny, to me. Humor is an interesting thing and what makes a person laugh a phenomena worth looking into. Contrasting images are often funny, where context is so contradictory it's ludicrous. Dogs in sweaters, people in pants obviously too tight, that kind of thing. Limbug's predicament is that kind of contradictory context, I think - as an entertainer he rips people for something he feels is wrong, and then in his "real" life turns around and has that wrong in his own life. It's hypocrisy, by another name. What we need to correct in ourselves, we criticize in others. Sometimes, not all the time, but in that case of his chronic pain and drugs, yes I think so. His reason was "less wrong" than someone else's reason. How conv-eeeeen-yent! But he's still a bug. Until he stops with the bellowing, he's a bug.

I would agree, Chas. Limbug's version of what is and isn't fair and equitable treatment of human failing has adjusted as a result, I'm sure since he's espoused that drug users convicted should be put into jail. He was arrested for illegal use of painkillers. It looked like his defense worked the system as best as could be done and his own case didn't result in a jail sentence. Defensible use of questionably obtained drugs to support an addiction to counter pain? We have a little of the pot calling the kettle black there IMO. Okay for his circumstance to be treated and rehab'd, others no. I would hope he's given thought to the basis for his former opinion in light of his own situation. But he's a radio personality, it's unreasonable to expect that because he has the mic that he offers anything useful, correct or of value simply because a lot of people listen to his program, a fact I'm sure we all would agree on. He talks. I guess a lot of people listen but again, why I don't know. He's balances between sophomoric soliliguoys and gallavanting gab that succeeds to generate substantial coin into the cash registers of all involved, so he's a "success". But at what? I don't know.

Which is exactly why we need some new change in how we gauge and measure intelligence and "entertainment" White Dove. Limbug does well for a college drop out, I'll give him that. He's clearly knowledgable although his knowledge isn't always factual. But critiquing his unique method of assembling information isn't worth it - he is, as you note, a radio personality who entertains and amuses millions who both agree and disagree with him. The fact he's hornswoggled his way onto the radio hardly makes him a point of agreement or disagreement, it just makes him someone who sells advertising. He's clogging up the air waves though as he may only be appealing to that part of the human psyche that slows down traffic on the road to better see an accident. Verbal train wrecks have appeal I guess. But that voice - he has that humpty dumpty glocked up bellow of a troll gargling mayonnaise. Yuk, for a guy who talks on the radio his voice gives me the creeps But he should be knowledgable, he should know stuff and make it entertaining to listen to since most of his job is to sit on his fat butt and quack about whatever crosses his "mind". Thankfully he's leaned up the rear view of his seat pants a little and for that he deserves our thanks. Less Limbug is a good thing, however we get it. I don't dislike him personally and don't listen to him at this point. I did take to checking in every once in awhile at one time but that was more than enough. No, I don't dislike him. I can't take him seriously enough to truly dislike him. But I do think he has the demeanor and personality of a wet baseball mitt. But that's just me.

WWJS (What would Jesus Shoot)

Bush deserved scrutiny, certainly by the second election. He got a big break after 9/11. He's an irresponsible liar, propped up and supported by a cadry of strong partnerships, much as he was as a younger man. If his Dad hadn't been President Bush first, I'm sure Little Bush would have been scubbed early. IMO. Obama - I have a feeling he'll do fine under scrutiny. he should be expected to be accountable, he's the President. Lame criticisms and the endless and inevitable barrage of pathological lies and thinly connected bits of phlegm soaked "information" are going to flow as they always do. Trying to discredit him may actually show how whipped some of his detractors are. They say if something's true it'll "stick". Snot sticks too though. If Kleenex gets in trouble we make it priority number one to bail those boys out and quick, we may have a lot of that stuff flying around for awhile. Rush Lumbarge is a joke, and most know it. He sells advertising for his Masters and to line his pockets with coin oiled by the sweat of others. He's a pig without the lipstick. He puts the fly in butterfly and the hmmm....roach in cockroach. He makes the buzz of mosquitoes sound like heavenly music. He could run his fingernails over a chalkboard while he spoke on the radio and the switchboard would light up with requests to play it again, he sounds that bad. He's gross.

It was unavailable when I opened, but I'll be sure to check it out again. Thanks!

On the side topic of salvation, just a few general thoughts and probably nothing new...I think the nature of it being "birth", our being born again, new life and other similar terms point to what "it" is as you stated What the Hey. To my understanding there's clearly a point of repentance, turning away from one kind of life to another that's key to that birth. Choosing Christ as the way to come to God (which God apparently wants us to do) requires recognition of what's been added that we lack. We have to repent, change our thinking about who we are what we do and begin to go down a new way of life for the "new birth" to occur. I don't completely subscribe to the idea that God "calls" some and not others to a new birth (that seems to contradict the idea of a savior for and to all mankind) - a physical birth doesn't involve the choice of the child being born - they're the result of a choice and actions of the parents. So I can see that the process God's put in place is there for all and is possible for all when they, in the process God's put in place in Christ, make the decision to repent and believe in what Jesus Christ has done, individually. Specifically when this happens can be the product of many things too complex to understand, for me anyway, but that it can happen appears to be a done deal. What our lives come to when we don't is also out of our scope to completely understand too, I thinik. Judgment ultimately is in God's providence not ours. After the birth occurs the "new life" continues from that point. Who and what we become is a product of the qualities of the new nature we have and also what we do. We may do the best we can and fall far short - it's in our human nature to do so - and we may do exceptionally well in God's eyes at other times throughout life as it continues. I think it's highly possible, probable, based on the bible's teachings, that our whole lives aren't weighed in and valued by God in a one-two-three, what did we do, what didn't we do today - kind of formula. The nature of life is far too complex, deep and diverse for that. God may know the numbers of hairs on my head (a task that gets easier as time goes on) but that kind of minutae is a "gimme" for God, as He presents Himself. There will likely be deeper issues of the heart that pertain to us in profoundly deeper ways than we can juggle in our minds now. That doesn't mean that our lives are blanketed by a kind of "all-bets-are-off" kind of grace-ticket. As Jesus said: "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" - Matthew 5:23-24. The record of the "prodigal son" is illuminating - the son leaves, returns and is accepted by his faither although others might not have done so as readily. If he hadn't returned the son would still have been a son to the father, loved and always ready to be accepted but it was his returning back that put his life back in order. Viewed from a new birth perspective and a growth perspective is has implications I think. Our lives require repentance, recognition of "sin", belief in Christ and a humble meek attitude towards who we are, what we do and how we live with others as we go from birth to life lived. We're always that "child" therefore, born, and growing. Paul's doctrine in the N. T. seems to deal with that aspect of it a great deal - "growing up" in Christ, etc.

I voted, I love to vote. Love to vote. Nearly everyone I know voted, kids voted. Glad to see so many here did too.

Hmm, okay. Stated and heard. I got a different view of what you were saying at the start. It was more of a statement than a query for experiences and what was learned by them. In general I'd agree, but as Mike stated that won't apply to everyone, at all times, everywhere. It simply won't, so some clarification is good. F'instance, you mention "Way Disciples" - that's years after I left the Way and my knee-jerk reaction to that era isn't one of high regard. Yet, you pose a question now that indicates there was some substance going on, some legitimate interest in helping others with your Christian message, and perhaps not only from you but others. A conflict like you describe could only occur if there was. I had the opportunity to meet many, many people while I was in the Way. I would define the "valley" of human need as simply the human condition. I have a saying - life sucks when it isn't cool. And it sucks most of the time for a large percentage of the people on this planet. Life, on the other hand, doesn't suck when it is cool. Unfortunately if I wait around long enough, the meter will jump up and down. Keeping it in one generally "cool" area can be quite a challenge. So my point is - of course anyone who intends to work intimately with people and be involved closely with their lives is going to see some serious uncoolness, problems of every ilk and stripe and a lot of generally bad hoodoo that will rob you of a lot of sleep if you start to think about it late at night. The world can be a very weird place, I've found, IMO. And a lot of Wayfers, while well intentioned, have gotten themselves in over their head time and again because they're not built or prepared to embrace someone in true darkness and not fumble their flashlight. It's better to not get involved if you don't want to get dirty. And that's the rub - the truth is that not everyone is really cut out for it that wants to. And it can be very difficult to find someone who doesn't mind getting your dirt on them long enough to lend a hand when push really comes to shove. I don't blame those who don't or can't, but I do have a really bad vibe for those who b.s. it or use the opportunity for personal gain. I have a message for them - and they're not going to like it. Anyhoo, I do have some lessons learned along these lines, I promise to revisit later. :)

exnoggy, that's the bidness He's in! I dewwwww believe it! Dale's 'tube videos have to be marketing to the converted, is my guess. He's putting stuff online for his own peeps. Or, he's trying to attract those outer-edgers who dig that kind of stuff. I know I felt power surging through my spiritual loins after just one viewing of one video. I can't imagine the explosive power that would be unleashed by a steady diet.

The Way won't put up an email address because they know the second they do, they're going to get lots of unwanted email from "disgruntled" former members. Disgruntled gets used a lot to describe those who have been screwed by the Way and have the bad taste to actually expect a response of some kind from them over it, and may apply accurately to a percentage of dissatisfied former customers. By and large a lot of those former-members who drop them a line might have no outstanding issues they want resolved and simply want to get some contact information or fine out what's up about this or that. I doubt they want to take the risk though of being innundated with complaints or worse so they require "snail" mail. Hey, it's your time they're taking, so I guess it's no biggie to them. That deal on the mail though is a dead giveaway, pardon the pun. It allows them to be in control of what kind of response goes out if one goes out at all. It would be easier to give a contact email or address of someone in the many locations they say they have activity in around the world so that someone interested in what they have to offer could move forward locally, but then the Way wouldn't have that control they get from gathering all the inquiries into one place where they can filter them, toss out what they don't like or want and decide on the rest. To add: yeah. That Way Prod Cootie Platoon is like, real gone man. If anyone can watch those Way performance videos and not wonder if something toxic got in the water back there, they may not have many good alternatives. In fact, that may be the primary benefit of having the videos online - it will allow for everyone who does enjoy that stuff to step off the primary genetic highways of society and cross pollinate that weirdness amongst themselves.

If their only concern was how they were treated by Way people locally and they like what's being taught, and now the people locally they're seeing treat them well - I don't know the answer to the question. I don't see how anyone could swallow what they're teaching but some do, no question about it. If as they say things are hunky dunky now in the Way, I would think that would include normal relationships with those that aren't members. Again, that should be a matter of choice, where a person's beliefs inform how they interact with others as they choose. As close friends, your friendship must have been based on other things than your affiliation with the Way and your religious beliefs. Since you've been friends since leaving I'd assume there were other things bonding you. Is that correct to assume? Can you both choose to be friends even while you disagree on this? It may or may not be possible or it may not even be the right thing to do. I think you both have to make that decision for yourselves. How to change their minds? Can't say. Whatever it is that's drawn them "back" must be important. Whatever draws them away would have to be too.

Orleans, a nice acoustic version of their song "Circles". For my little Lady...

Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! DWBH - "blinded by the light". It's amazing what's on youtube exockymama. I'm glad you brought this up, I'd have missed it for sure. Reading the bible as I do and letting my mind fill in the images of what Jesus might have done had He had more time - I wonder what He'd say or think today? Would this have been His next step, His New Change Paradigm for Power? It's a tad facetious and maybe more than a little presumptuous to assume to know but deep in my innards I sense - that ain't it. The business of religion, tax exempt highway robbery.