lindyhopper

Isn't that somewhat of an oxymoron? I would think that none of us will know until it happens...or doesn't, and what we think now will have little effect on what will actually happen or not happen then. Well, yeah, Roy, it's called "the fun part."

Dot, it is the idea that people do things that please them, hedonism is more in reference to physical pleasure. Although, IMO, whether physical pleasure or the pleasure one gets from acts that appeal to their moral standard, it is all born out of selfishness (what feels good to you, what you thing is right, etc). As to the types of sex that are hazardous to our health, I refer to the American Journal of Medicine which has said that more than half of all people will have an STD/STI in their lifetime. There would also be some debate as to whether doing something that is hazardous to your health makes it intrinsically wrong, but I don't really feel like getting that deep into it just to defend swingers.

Mark, I don't see the issue as due to this being a hedonistic society. That is a pretty broad brush. The real reason is that we live in a secular society with a secular government (thank God ). It is a melting pot of ethnicity, culture, theology, philosophy, etc. That is the main reason marriage is a contract and not just a sacrament. Sure anyone can still take vows before their god and not sign any papers, but they wouldn't get the benefits that they would if they did. So it is a contract. Although, two people can still have that contract and still agree that their marriage is a sacrament and act accordingly. But, since we have this melting pot, we should imbrace what makes it so great, that being accepting people's differences and uniting on our commonality, instead of forcing our views on others. Especially, when our differences are virtually inconsequential in regards to society and our personal beliefs.

Interesting stuff, Sushi. I would say that I am a cross between a Drill Sargent and a Consultant. "You will listen to my choices and you will like it!" Well, not quite like that. I try to give my boys as many choices as possible. I think that is very important to give them the power of making decisions. Although, when I am not in a good mood or if the day has worn me down, I will start making demands that I want to be listened to and adheared to right now, or consequenses will follow. I must say that those are not the better moments or moments that I am happy about. It does seem, though, that it is like an old habit I fall backon. I agree with Abi, in that there are certain things I would take issue with. I think we need to eat as a family and that what is on the table is what is for dinner. I think that going to bed at a certain time is important and as Abi said, I don't know that a young child will make the connection that the reason they are a crab and everyone is annoying them is because they didn't get enough sleep last night. My kids are still young, 1 and 3, and I think there is a lot of be said about schedules. If I let them blow off enough steam, then when it is time for a bath and bed they are ready. Even the one year old knows that at a certain time of night when I undo the gate at the bottom of the stairs that it is time to crawl up them and head for the bathroom and try to take his clothes off for bathtime. He knows that after rincing it is time to get out and that it is time for pjs and then brushing teeth and then nursing and then bed. At young ages kids think in a linear time frame and when you do things consistently they learn what comes next and are ready for it without a fight. It took us a while to figure that out. We still have a hard time with it because we can be and like to be pretty spontaneous sometimes. We are still learning for sure, and we have some pretty rough days at times. So I would be interested in looking into this stuff. Anything to make the job of being a parent a little easier sounds good to me. We went over some techniques at a parent night at our daycare. (The boys started about 3 weeks ago.) There were some good tips relayed there. One was using positive words in instructing what not to do. Like if one hits the other you could say to a young child, "we're learning how to use gentle hands arn't we?" and then remind them by showing them. This would be instead of just saying or yelling "NO HITTING" or "DON"T HIT." At a young age, you can really take advantage of giving choices and framing those choices in a way that either one gets what you want done. For example, "Do you want to go upstairs for bathtime by yourself or do you want me to take you upstairs?" You also have to be willing go along with thier choice. So if they want you to take them then you have to take them, but most of the time at 2 - 4 years of age, the kids want to do things themselves. Another thing that helps, at least at this age of 3ish, is preparing them ahead of time before doing something. So we talk about what we are going to do and what you would like them to do. For example going to the store. We try to talk about it a while berfore hand. Let them know we are going to the store later. Ask them if they want to be your helper and explain to them how helpers act in the store etc.. We talk about things like that several time before we ever actually do it. So, when it comes time to do it they are ready and eager to go and help and act nicely in the store instead of throwing a fit over something simple. Again, spontaneity can get in the way of this one as well. Also, after doing this consistently for a while then you really have to do what you say you were going to do otherwise, the child may get really upset. Like the other day, we were going to get gas, but I wanted to get a carwash as well. I asked my 3 year old, "hey, do you want to go get a car wash too?" I knew he would because he loves going in those drive through ones. So we went to another gas station that had one. By the time we got there my mind was already on to something else and I forgot to get the carwash. So when I got back in the car and drove off, the boy was really upset....over a carwash. It was probably more like over not doing what he was expecting to do (something he was looking forward to.) In times like those I tend to make him just deal with that fact, but it is always better to do what you say you are going to do, even down to the carwash. This is becoming another long Lindy post, so I guess I will stop there.

Krys, Sorry for the things you went through. From your post on the first page it seems that perhaps you thought I was into this sort of thing. Not so. Couldn't do it. As to what Way ministers did in the past...that was way wrong and an abuse of power etc. Frankly though, I don't see what the Kings, some considered men of God, did in the OT as all that great either. I don't see much in the Bible that speaks to how evil it was to have a harem, either. My problem with what VPW, LCM and others did was not that they broke some commandment, but that they abused their position and in doing so abused people and lied, betrayed, and forever injured women and families. They not only hurt the women that they preyed on but they betrayed the rest of us in doing so. What they did was not swinging, it was rape and sexual misconduct. In the OT and other places around the world there was an understanding between the king, his queen or wives, and his concubines. Although, women were not on the same footing as men let alone the king. They had little choice in matter. Again, I don't see much in the Bible condemning this, but I would. I don't see it as my place to say what is right and what is wrong between couples who are ALL consenting and ALL in FULL understanding and acceptance of what is going on, as long as no one is getting hurt. If someone is getting hurt, be it children, a spouse, a family, a partner, then obviously something is wrong and something needs to change. Honestly, I don't know how people can do it. I also don't know if in every situation that there is not an emotinoally injured person involved who is being taken advantage of. I wouldn't know, but I won't assume it either. I've known some women that were just as sex crazed as some men are. So, who knows the motives and capcities of every individual? As to what marriage is....well I don't think there is a lock on that definition, but I would think that the specifics of that definition is largely agreed upon between the two people taking it on. So if two people have agreed on it, I don't care to imagine what is or is not going on in their bedroom. So, hopefully all this clarifies what's wrong with me.

Anyone who believes in an omnipresent God, is a unitarian. Period(.) no matter how you dice it.

Funny story. My wife and I met swing dancing...more specifically lindyhopping, hence the screen name. Anyways, we all used to refer to it as "swinging," as in, "we'er going out swinging tonight." Well, when I was really getting into it I lived in an apartment complex and I always ran into this young woman at the mailbox. We would talk and I was probably trying to get her to come to fellowship, but at some point I had told her that I was a swingdancer and she said she had some friends in Philly that were into it and blah blah blah. Well, weeks went by and I saw her again on a Friday and started discussing our weekend plans and I told her I was "going out swingin." She got kind of a funny look on her face and said "really!?" I was a little puzzeled and "said yeah remember how we were talking about this a few weeks ago?" Well, apparently she had forgotten and I wasn't picking up on what she was thinking there for a while and reminded her that she said were really into it. Of course the word dancing didn't come to mind for a while and the look on her face was just priceless. Her neighbor some sex freak, who would have known. We both cracked up once we understood eachother. Anyways, I think that if everyone is very clear, all parties involved then do what want. I think it takes a rare couple to pull that off. I don't think it would be cheating either because in my mind, the hurtful part of cheating is the betrayal, the deceiving, the lying. OT kings slept with a lot of women. They had harems. I would think that would have been even worse since many of those women really didn't have any choice. Monogamy seems to be much more of a cultural issue than a right vs. wrong issue. Then again many of the polygamist cultures and religions I know don't give the women much choice either. That is obviously not good. There is also the biological side to the idea of monogamy vs. polygamy, but it leaves morality out of the picture.

I have sort of been talking about this with some of the Way myspacers recently. TooGrey touched on part of what I think was a group of teachings that taught not to question and not to consider and not to doubt. Those would be the "integrity of the Word" teaching coupled with the "Eve considers and doubts, Fall of Man" teaching coupled with the "Law of believing" teaching where doubt and worry were negative believing, and fear was "false evidence appearing real." There may be more but it sure seems like after accepting just a few teachings you would be ready to dismiss everything else. It would seem to be planned that way. Although, the Way is not the only group who does this. I understand what sonofarthur is saying for sure. There was a time when I thought that there was just too much to look into and that if I wanted to get in to the "deep stuff" then I would have to stick with one thing in order to get there. I never would have thought that it might be possible to get into deep stuff by looking at many different perspectives and comparing and relating them. I also think it is somewhat of a lazy habit. I think we all do it to a degree. We all want to be right as JJ said. Sonofarthur is at least looking at other ideas. For a long time I didn't even do that. When I finally did, I was discouraged by leaders in the Way. I'm not picking on you SoA. A lot of people don't even discuss, they just immediately dismiss. I would think that if everyone decided to look into other possible spiritual explainations for the way things are that quite a few churches would have less people consistently coming. It could affect money coming it. Although, I doubt that is the mindset of most minsters. I would think that most genuinely think they are right and most everyone else is wrong. Come to think of it, though, perhaps it is a lack of empathy or intellectual empathy. It is thinking that "because this works for me then it works for everyone this way." This type of person is seemingly unable to consider another persons motives or reasoning if it doesn't exist within the box that they sit in. I would imagine this would be the reason that no one that I talked with when I left twi could come even close to my reasons for leaving.

I agree, ex10. You know I was reading on the Way myspace page what people thought was right according to the Word concerning relationships (dating). It seemed like to get serious was a no-no primarily because it can "cause confusion." There was a lot of talk about confusion and how "we don't want that." How crazy is that? Of course, the similest answer would be the old VPism "I have no friends when it comes to God's Word!" It makes it pretty clear, that friendship has its doctrinal limits, no matter how close you are. One of the things I was confronted on the last two confrontations I have (with the last one ending up with me leaving) was on non-Way or non-believer friendships. I was spending too much time with people who were not interested in going to fellowship. What insanity!

I think I had a couple or a few. Although, as is the culture of twi, once i left we didn't keep in touch. They didn't try and contact me (except one) and I didn't try to contact them. There was probably a mutual understanding. I knew what they thought about me and they knew that I knew what they knew. :) I wouldn't mind catching up with them. I do have some true friends from college that stuck with me while I was in still and once I left they were some of my biggest support and they are still around for me. I think this was a problem especially when it came to marriage. I have always dated and married someone who I am not just attracted to but someone that I have already built a friendship with. In twi it seemed that it was more important to find someone with the same goals as you and at your same "spiritual level" or what ever. VPW used to say you could make a marriage work between any two believers. Well, maybe, but would you be happy. I doubt it. You love your friends. If you are not friends with the one you love, something is wrong.

I won't condone what this sphincter group is doing because I don't know exactly what it is. Although, in the family corps, I was in 5-6th grade, and we had play days after school at times and we had work days at other times. Of course, at that age you don't really enjoy the work days that much, but doing it with friends wasn't so bad and as an adult I can see how it helped cultivate a strong work ethic. Plus I learned the proper way to do certain things. At Indiana it really wasn't that bad, nice surroundings, diverse jobs to do and learn from etc.. What would have been more helpful and what would be more helpful in this "minister's" case is to do things for other people other than the MOG. It would be better to not only cultivate a strong work ethic but also helping those that need help. Helping a fellow fellowshipper is one thing, but it doesn't always carry through to helping people that really need it which also usually brings with it the creative thinking that comes along with helping those that don't know how to help themselves already. Working with your hands is good for a young person. It helps coordination, builds respect, builds confidence, brings pride in what you do, and many other things. Thats the way I see it.

I don't think so. Yeah some similarities, but I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people, your average Wayfer would not have drank the cool-aid literally, or whipped out the AK-47 for his highest. Most of the people I knew probably would have said WTF and gotten out of there. Of course, there are possibly more people like Nandon was than I realised. Which would be scary.

Kit, you've treated the two differently. Work at good and your fruit is goodness. Work at evil and you fruit is evil. You arn't going to become goodness anymore than you are going to become evil....but your fruit is.DDwrote cman wrote I think fruit is the what shows up. How do you know an apple tree is an apple tree? The apples. An orange tree? The oranges. How do you know the spirit the fruit. "By their fruits you will know them." That list of opposites, Jerry, we all have that fruit at different times, Christian, Jewish, Whatikki...both sides of the list. Some will have more than the others though, Christian, Jew, Whatikki. Do all those "of the flesh" manifest the "works of the flesh"only? Do all those of the spirit manifest the works of the spirit only? By their fruits you shall know them. It all seems to be weaving a tapestry that doesn't have clear cut lines with one group on one side and one on the other.

I think that sometimes we read things and ignore the substance of some descriptions while accutely focusing on others. So much so, that at times that we loose the original substance of what it is we think we are talking about. On the other thread it was omniscience. Here it is onmipresence. This is what most Christians and many other religions think of God, is it not? So, it helps more to think of the nature of things to define and realise that nature than it does to get caught up in the story, narrative, or myth associated with such things. IF God is omnipresent, everywhere at once, past present and future, then he is both unitarian and trinitarian and quadritarian and octogenarian etc. :) He is both everywhere and nowhere, both everything and nothing. God is the he, she, it of everything and nothing. God is the everything and the "ness" of everythingness and the nothing and the "ness" of nothingness, both the infinite and the pinpoint. God is the "ness." He, She, It is you, me, and even Dupree, blessed Trinity *sing it*! So we get caught up in the stories and the stories become our faith instead of what be believe the nature of God is, which is what really draws you to God to begin with. It is the all knowingness and the all presentness and all lovey-dovey-ness, the all-so-much-bigger-better-smarter-more-powerful-more-knowlegable-than-you-ness. Which if true is still the you-ness. Which is what the stories are really getting at anyway. Because in IT "we live and move" and IT is in Christ in YOU. In you, out of you- put your right foot in, put your right foot out, and shake it all about...holy Moses! IT's everywhere, you can't shake IT! As an omnipresent omniscient God he is the collective. The all knowing God that is everywhere is the everywhere present knowledge. The knowledge of everything is everywhere, in and out of everything. That is what is "God in Christ in you." Perhaps, making Jesus Lord then is making God Lord and that realization is one that it is God in man and in you and in everything. So the recieving of holy spirit is more of a realizsation that the Spirit is wholly everywhere which would make it holy in that the knowledge and realization of this is special. Or not. Don't be sad for us agnostics, arthorson. We all know much less than we think.

I think GT has a good grip on it there and all of you guys are on to something, but perhaps the medium of the analogy needs to change. Instead of a film which is currently running with a past, present and future, look at as a painting. Sorry for those of you who can't follow analogies (there seems to be a number of you on here) but bear with me. This one is simple. For God this painting that he has created is called "The History of the Universe." From our perspective, we have a past and a present and a future. We can look at our peripheral past and see some of the other choices that we think we could have made and see the past as best as we can recall. We can look at our peripheral future and look at what seems to be our possible options and directions to take. From our puny finite perspective the past and the future go on infinitely. For God though, "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day" (for you Bible fans) and as an omniscient, omnipresent artist (read creator), he sees it all like a canvas hung on the wall. To God, while he may care for your perspective in your suffering, or maybe not, he sees it less as suffering and more like two intersecting brush strokes. It is a small, nearly insignificant, yet integral and necessary detail in the larger scheme or composition of the painting of the history of the universe. From our perspective we have choices and have lives that start and go on and stop, we live and move within the past and future inside this universe, but to God this infinite multi-dimensional space we are a spec within, is just a two dimensional work of art, in-finite. A masterpiece if you will. Perhaps you don't like that. "But wait, an all loving God wouldn't paint this scene of putrid hell that I live in!" Well, putrid hell is a relative term. One person's putrid hell is another person's day in the park. To God it is just the sixth day in which he decided to clear his palette, mix all the beautiful colors of the spectrum together to get a nice muddy grey brown, and he painted our lives or just "life". He thought this work needed more dirt. Your poor hellacious existence is really not all that bad, especially to God who sees it all as one, he sees the bigger picture, and as a composition of color and light and dark and line and space and tension and texture. From our perspective he is all love. We are part of all of his creation. He is all love because he loves it all. Like a painter stepping back to see his work, he does so and says "It is very good," and he loves it. After all it is something he made and he is really happy with it...all of it, life, death and everything inbetween. We are in the everpresent moment, the moment of truth for us, and within an already completed work. That is, of course, if there is a God and if this god is omniscient. There may be an infinite number of other possibilities which may also be true, or be true instead.

Amazing what we get when we read something from a new perspective or frame of mind. Does it say what it says or say what we want it to? Who knows, right? We think we do ... or don't. from the other thread geo said SirG said agreed. Like "seeking God." Like "seeking truth." Like "seeking the truth." Like "looking at the facts." Like "just experiencing life." Like "looking at things objectively." Like "looking at things subjectively." Like "your own personal truth." Like "finding fairies." Like "fill in the blank." All people try and figure out what is going on, has gone on, and will go on in their life and why. We all come to slightly or drastically different conclusions, even though we experience largely the same general challenges and trials, highs and lows. So what does that say? page 2 SirG said: I would agree that there is a required dialogical capacity required to communicate some things about most fields of study and life. On the other hand, I can teach my three year old things about physics and he gets what I am saying. Why? It is how I say it, not what I am talkking about. It is about knowing ones audiance. There are several reasons why one person might not understand what another is saying or getting at in general. The most obvious one is that the speaker is speaking in a language that the hearer doesn't understand. Perhaps this is what some of us think, but I'm talking about diffferent languages. Another would be the teacher/ student model. In this case the teacher is the one who is educated, learned, knowledgeable about a given topic and the student is not. A bad teacher will not be able to communicate the ideas in ways the student can understand even though the vast majority of the time it is possible to do so. A bad student will not put forth the effort to understand. This model is the place most of us assume we are in even if we don't intend to do so. We assume we are a good teacher, educated and knowledgeable, and those that don't understand us are not trying hard enough. They are not listening or are ignoring something, rejecting, closing themselves off, or willfully ignorant. Hence the condescension. Another reason would be the opposite roles; an unlearned person tryies to convey something they don't know anything or know very little about to someone who does know about the subject, but fails miserably. In this case the speaker may realise they don't know the subject well but is unable to put it into words properly, or the person may think they know what they are talking about and will argue the eduacted person tooth and nail. In this case the ignorant party looks like a fool, because they are. The last reason would be that both parties or all parties don't know what they are talking about, but one or both of them thinks that they do. This is where I believe we are at with religion and spiritualism as well as other topics. IMO, this is the reality of the teacher-student model when it come to religion and spirituality. Even though I fail at it at times, I try to approach the topic in this way, Socratically. It is not because I have not saught or do not seek or close things off without consideration. It is what I have come up with after "just taking what one's got and trying to make sense of it" in the age that I live in. If it were the the student-teacher model every good student (pure in heart, seeeking for answers) would understand the dialog presented by the good teacher (you or God or the yougod/megod). We all don't though. We all come to slightly or drastically different conclusions. Maybe the reason we all don't understand eachother is because we fail to see the similarities. We all want to be right. We all think we are the teachers when we are all the ignorant. We think we are something, when we are nothing. Because of this we fail and refuse to come to a common dialog prehaps because it makes the whole thing all too common.

FS, From what I can tell, cman and possibly a couple others here believe in a non-dualistic, Christian, immanence. That is to say, that God and the devil and the universe exist within us and the Bible speaks to this . He still believes that God is transcendant but that this is possible through the infinite mind. Therein lies the paradox and the riddle without an end.There also seems to be an alomst existential emphasis on a subjective reality. So, because of this rule of the subjective over objective rationalism, it seems people do not fully intellectualize their POV outside of their own experience and prehaps, say, the Bible. So this presents a problem in forums such as this, in that it is near impossible for a real conversation of ideas, where both parties understand eachother, to take place. Instead, it takes more time and effort for the one scratching their head to understand the other by observing a collection of posts over a long period of time. Still, this doesn't make it any easier to hold a conversation. Cman, also at times sounds like a non-dualistic Gnostic. Take a look at the apocryphal Gospel of Phillip. From the G of P: Sound familiar? Whether or not this is biblical or not is not really the question. After all, what does that mean really, anyway? It is not so much in what it says but in how it is read, or as cman said, "it's not how I sound so much as how it's heard." In other words (my words), it can say whatever you want it to say. The riddle is: how does that make what cman or you or I any more or less right or wrong? The easy answer is it doens't. The problem is we still see people with a singular subjective reality in which all other subjective and objective realities exist and are subject to. It doesn't make sense and it isn't meant to unless you change what you think to what they think....hence the condescension, arrogance, and elitism. Indeed, it would take some humility and meekness (as defined by some) to take this proposition on. It is not one I choose take on personally.

All you ever wanted to know but less, might be on the thread I started a while ago, Free Soul. The Devil Do what you might do with a novel. Read the first couple pages and the last couple. You'll get the jist. You know FS, I see that elitest attitude a lot around here and in many religions in general. No offense to anyone, it's just the way it is. I was making a joke of it earlier but the impudence of donig so in the guise of love or in the name of Love as in "the God of", speaks to something very wrong, perhaps on an individual level or on a human level. I don't know, but I do see it as the reason for religion all too often being the wolf in sheep's clothing and for the leverage and control it exerts over so many, so often. Perhaps it is both its appeal and the burn. If it is not the God that requires so much of you to be known or to respond to you, then it is more of a gnostic higher plane of either intellectualism or lack there of. It is both fustrating and fascinating. Somewhere in there, buried, are good intentions and common threads of humanism, oddly enough.

Ah yes, I still impress friends with the slice the banana in its peel trick.

Actually, I will have to agree with Oldies and Whitey on this one. :blink: Take a look at all the people that went to offshoots that were "new and improved." "...NOW WITH LESS.....people." Consider all the weirwillites right here on GSC....a small sample. Consider all those that went from the fire to the frying pan. "It isn't quite so hot in here and, hey, it smells like yesterday's sausage. Besides, I've had dreams about pancakes." Consider the number of people here at GSC to the number of people in pre-POP twi. This doesn't mean that twi was great. Nor does it mean that it didn't get worse over time. Perhaps it means the longer you were in the more coolaid you partook in. You liked the red mustache. You thought it made you look spiritual. Like an anorexic looking in the mirror at how fat they are. It doesn't mean that all those with great memories of a long time twi life are correct in their perspective of what twi was. Perhaps it means they didn't see anything. Somehow. Perhaps they were more codependant from the start. Perhaps they were more f'ed up from the start. Perhaps they were more anorexic. If I could only believe bigger, study harder, I could master the word. I could loose these love handles. I think of victims defending their kidnappers or abuser....a woman returning once again to the abusive husband. "He's a good man, really." They are correct. We are all good and bad. Some more good than bad. Some more bad than good. "lets focus on the good here, people. Feel the love....upside your head." ...and lets focus on that woman that just keeps going back for more.... IT IS HER FAULT after all. She could have left at any point if she didn't like the Way the love was being dealt.

Mo, if you would like my response to your post please PM me. or go to my website. dubyadubyadubya.lindyhastheanswers.com Click the "sign in" button. If you are not already a member please click the "I'd like to become a member and find out the answers" button. Fill in all the blanks. They are all mandatory. This should only take 20-30 minutes. You will recieve a confirmation through the US postal service. Your confirmation mail will have a temporary log in name and passcode. To change and personalize these please fill in the blanks labeled "new log in name" and "new passcode". Make a copy of this page for your records and return the original in the enclosed SASE. Once you sign in, click the "I'd like to make a donation" button. Next, select the sugggested donation you prefer. All major credit cards are accepted. Once we have recieved your donation, we will mail you the new "members only" web address. Cut and paste the address to the top of your computer screen. You don't want to loose it. You will want to see my future responses. We suggest using safety sissors and Gorrila Glue or Liquid Nail. Lastly, type the new Members Only web address into your web browser. Read and enjoy! Don't forget to check out your member benefits, they are both practical and enlightening.

Hee hee I said, She,It.

Correction on the premise. THEY can and will answer anything. It may not make sense, but isn't that the point really? God will answer you if you ask, but only if you are humble, sincere, meek, quiet, still, honest, at peace, in pieces, or whirling your peas in the right fashion at the right time of day, fill in the blank________. If you don't hear, it is because of YOU, not because He,She,It is not there. You don't know how to listen or you don't know how to ask nicely. You are supposed to say pretty please with shugga on top, in the name of Yankee Doodle Dandy. Of course, that is the answer, because... that is the answer, because... there is a God. That is the answer, even if some of us have asked and looked and listened and did all of the above (except maybe the pea thing, have to try that later) with a pure and honest heart and still heard no still small voice or saw a blinding light or burning bush from the all knowing, all powerful, all loving, God of gods, the one true God. There have been times when my door mat was partially wet with dew and partially not, but it was usually due to the newspaper laying on it. Or you have to take the Bible rip it all to pieces and put it back together agian and then throw it into some tea to realise that the God we always wanted is right there in us already. All you have to do is stop wanting and start believing, stop thinking and start seeing. See, you must have eyes to see what can't be seen and ears to hear what can't be heard. It is a paradoxical enigma wrapped in a conundrum wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a wonton Embrace the eggroll. You don't know what is inside, but it is all goodness. Tastey, Godly, soy goodness... and cabbage. So don't ask the questions because they are already answered for those that have eyes to see and a screen to read.

Exactly what I was thinking, Geo, and I thought the answer to the the question "Bondage, why do people people just remember the food" was because you were handcufffed and food was what was being smeared all over you. What else you gonna remember, except maybe the wallpaper? Actually, I was remembering the food today as I cut into a pecan pie today. Mmmm mmm. Straight from my home state. Remember those imposter pies at the ROA? "If you love pecan pie, you gonna love...." Actually they were good. I may have looked forward to those little slice-O-pie in plastic more than anything else at the ROA. That and the buscuits and gravy. Thanks to Bob Evans I have been able to recover. Thank you very much-o Mr. Roberto!

As I said, I like mayo. Although, everything in moderation. Right? I went to Christmas dinner this evening and there on the table was this strange cranberry colored loaf slathered in mayo. It was some sort of beet and fish "salad" with mayo squeezed all over the top. Some sort of russian dish. Needless to say I steered clear.