How do you feel about "born-agains"?

[andrea0121 28]

The example that you use is of a woman who has mental health issues and therefore, is NOT your typical born again Christian.

Did you just yank that out of your ass or do you have proof of her "mental health issues?"

Marguerite Perrin is a God Warrior. I mean, if you want to equate that with mental health issues, be my guest. :grouphug:

[pattygreen 5]

But that wasn't your original point, which I accurately refuted. Your point was that there were more people who believed your version of the bible than the catholic (pope) version. That isn't so.

While it is true that there are more catholics in the world than other denominations, it does not mean that they believe what the pope says over the scriptures. It's just that they have not been given the opportunity or have not taken the opportunity to read the bible and see for themselves that they have been lied to about alot of things. I was a Catholic once, but didn't have a clue that they were lying to me about many things. They falsely teach lies to their congregants and never once encouraged me to read the bible ever. (for they probably knew that if they encouraged bible reading with their people, their numbers would dwindle dramatically) There wasn't even bibles in the pews when I was growing up. There still isn't in many Catholic churches.

And once again - your arrogance is staggering. The catholic denomination will have some answering to do when they stand before God? Wow!!

I should have said "the Catholic clergy will have some answering to do before God", not the congregation. My mistake. God gives each person the ability to know truth. He gave us his words so that we would not be blinded by false teachers. The bible teaches that all those who teach will be judged more harshly. Therefore, to teach falsehoods to others will require an accountability before God someday. I am not making that up. The bible tells this. It is not arrogance on my part to say so. It is just the plain truth of the matter.

I am not defending the catholic church. I believe the male hierarchy have been wrong about a lot of things. The history of the catholic church is fraught with corruption and it continues today. But that is different from saying that how they have interpreted the bible will make them have a lot of answering to do while you and yours will just pass on through.

The bible is not hard to understand at all. It can be read and comprehended very easily by anyone. God made sure of it. I can not for the life of me understand why the Catholic clergy have it so wrong on many issues, when it reads so plainly. But they have their reasons for wanting their people to pray to Mary and to Saints even though God said very clearly that Jesus is the only mediator. They used to tell their people that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. Then they couldn't hide that lie from their congregants any longer and changed that to be okay now. How can one day something be a mortal sin and then all of a sudden now it's not? Because they made it up. God never said it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. They couldn't back it up with scripture. They may one day change the rule they have about praying to Saints and Mary just like they did with the eating meat thing. They just haven't figured out they are wrong about it yet.

Please don't ever make any more references or cut and paste neocon op-eds about Obama's modesty or lack thereof until you look at your own arrogance.

I am not saying that I have it perfectly figured out. All I know is that anyone and everyone that was ever Catholic and THEN read the scriptures has concluded that they were duped by the Catholic church. It is one thing to say that our "interpretations" are different, but that's not it at all. There is only ONE way to interpret certain verses in the bible. "There is only one mediator between man and God, and that is Christ Jesus." Now, tell me another way to interpret that? Does that mean Mary and the Saints can also mediate between God and man? I don't think so. Come on now, let's not play games. It means what it says. There is ONE mediator, Jesus and Him only. Now that one bit of falsehood that the Catholic church gives their congregation could be overlooked if there weren't just soooo many bits of falsehoods that they teach that could be confirmed with scripture. To say I am arrogant because I know the pope to be wrong on that issue is just plain wrong. God gives wisdom to those who desire with their heart and seek to know the truth. I have asked Him for that wisdom, and he has blessed me with the truth of the word of God. Just like He will bless anyone who asks to learn more about Him.

[andrea0121 28]

The bible is not hard to understand at all. It can be read and comprehended very easily by anyone. God made sure of it. I can not for the life of me understand why the Catholic clergy have it so wrong on many issues, when it reads so plainly. But they have their reasons for wanting their people to pray to Mary and to Saints even though God said very clearly that Jesus is the only mediator. They used to tell their people that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. Then they couldn't hide that lie from their congregants any longer and changed that to be okay now. How can one day something be a mortal sin and then all of a sudden now it's not? Because they made it up. God never said it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. They couldn't back it up with scripture. They may one day change the rule they have about praying to Saints and Mary just like they did with the eating meat thing. They just haven't figured out they are wrong about it yet.

So have they (the Catholic church) reneged on the whole shell fish thing? And I'm pretty sure my boyfriend is going to hell since he mars the corners of his beard. :grouphug:

I'm not Catholic. I read that in the bible. It's pretty easy to understand.

Oh, I've been known a time or two to work from home on Sunday too. SMITE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Cleo's Mom 257]

While it is true that there are more catholics in the world than other denominations, it does not mean that they believe what the pope says over the scriptures. It's just that they have not been given the opportunity or have not taken the opportunity to read the bible and see for themselves that they have been lied to about alot of things. I was a Catholic once, but didn't have a clue that they were lying to me about many things. They falsely teach lies to their congregants and never once encouraged me to read the bible ever. (for they probably knew that if they encouraged bible reading with their people, their numbers would dwindle dramatically) There wasn't even bibles in the pews when I was growing up. There still isn't in many Catholic churches.

There are no bibles in the church because you aren't suppose to read the bible while attending mass. You are supposed to participate in the mass with responses. You can bring you bible or rosaries and read it or say them before mass, but you are to participate in the liturgy of the mass and you can't do that if you're reading or praying the rosary.

The church I belong to has bible studies. I have never seen anything that would discourage people from reading the bible. But I will say that in the history of the catholic church, that was true. The Jesuits, in the middle ages, didn't want people to read because they didn't want them to read the bible.

I think the catholic church gets a lot of things wrong. Like holy days and the not eating meat on Fridays. But they claim to be able to justify everything in the church just like you do. They might not be able to make a direct quote from the bible - like the not eating meat - but they would find some passage that they would interpret than would allow them to justify it.

Again, I am not defending the catholic church. Only pointing out that every interpretation of the bible believes that theirs is the right one.

[leroyspuds 0]

Anyone who takes the bible literally is suspect of having mental health issues. Anyone who pushes it down the throats of others is a pest. Anyone who uses it to hurt others is a jerk.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Anyone who takes the bible literally is suspect of having mental health issues. Anyone who pushes it down the throats of others is a pest. Anyone who uses it to hurt others is a jerk.

Well put. Where've you been?

[pattygreen 5]

Anyone who takes the bible literally is suspect of having mental health issues. Anyone who pushes it down the throats of others is a pest. Anyone who uses it to hurt others is a jerk.

The language of the bible is of three kinds. Figurative, Literal, and Symbolic. Such expressions as "harden not your heart" or "Let the dead bury their dead" are figurative, and their meaning is made clear in the context. Symbolic language like the description of Nebuchadnezzar's "Colossus", Daniel's "Four wild beasts", or Christ in the midst of the "seven candlesticks" is explained either in the same chapter or somewhere else in the bible. The rest of the language of the bible is to be interpreted according to the customary rules of grammar and rhetoric. That is, we are to read the bible as we would read any other book, letting it say what it wants to say without allegorizing or spiritualizing its meaning. It is this false method of interpreting scripture that has led to the origin of so many religious sects and denominations.

There are 3 things that we must avoid in the handling of God's word. The misinterpretation, the misapplication and the dislocation of Scripture. The trouble is men are not willing to let the scriptures say what they want to say. This is mainly due to their training, environment, prejudice, or desire to make the scriptures teach some favorite doctrine.

[pattygreen 5]

I think the catholic church gets a lot of things wrong. Like holy days and the not eating meat on Fridays. But they claim to be able to justify everything in the church just like you do.

Can you tell me what I justify in the church? I don't understand what you mean by that.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I think the catholic church gets a lot of things wrong. Like holy days and the not eating meat on Fridays. But they claim to be able to justify everything in the church just like you do.

Can you tell me what I justify in the church? I don't understand what you mean by that.

You always justify your views with your interpretation of the bible. Like saying Jesus was a right winger. Or that paying taxes is stealing. It doesn't say those things in the bible but you take what is in the bible and you interpret it to mean those things.

The catholic church does the same thing.

[pattygreen 5]

So have they (the Catholic church) reneged on the whole shell fish thing? And I'm pretty sure my boyfriend is going to hell since he mars the corners of his beard.

I'm not Catholic. I read that in the bible. It's pretty easy to understand.

Oh, I've been known a time or two to work from home on Sunday too. SMITE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You need to read the bible. All of it. Not just pull a verse out of nowhere and expect it to make sense. Once you read it and continue to read it more and more, God reveals more and more to the reader. He explains his words as being "alive".

For the Word of God is Living and Active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

The Old Testament was written to cast a foreshadow of the things that were to come. (Jesus dying on the cross in order to save mankind from their sins) Those who lived in those days looked forward to the coming of the Christ and put their faith in God who said He would send a Savior to mankind. Because of their faith in the promise of God, which would soon come, they can live in Heaven one day.:eek:

The New Testament was written to show the world what God had already done in sending his Son Jesus to save themn from their sins. We today, look back to the cross and put our faith in God who sent his Savior to mankind. Because of our faith in the promise of God, which already came to pass, We can live in Heaven one day.:mad:

It's all about faith.

[pattygreen 5]

You always justify your views with your interpretation of the bible. Like saying Jesus was a right winger. Or that paying taxes is stealing. It doesn't say those things in the bible but you take what is in the bible and you interpret it to mean those things.

The catholic church does the same thing.

I see what you are saying here, but I disagree. Sometimes the bible doesn't come right out and give a verse that is perfectly clear on a subject, yet the principles taught within the book as a whole will confirm the view as correct. For instance, The bible does not come right out and say, "To pay taxes is stealing." Ther is no such verse. Yet, it teaches that you should not take from others to use for your own desire, whatever that may be. Taxation is a sign of sovereignty, if the civil authorities demand more than ten percent of a person`s income, they are declaring they are more important than God, and deserve a larger portion of a person`s wealth than God does. If they demand the same amount as the tithe, they are saying that they are at least equal with God and deserve the same taxes from individuals. This is undoubtedly wrong on the part of the civil authorities.

It teaches that to take something that God says you are not entitled to is theft. For the government to take people`s property (in this case, money) that it is not entitled to is theft.

While we are instructed to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,"(Matthew 22:21) we in America do not have a Caesar. We have no Czar, no Lord, no King. In fact the Founding Fathers boldly claimed, "We have no king but Jesus!" Abraham Lincoln made it clear, "We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people."

God charges us with the responsibility of being good stewards of our money, all our money. "Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." (1 Corinthians 4:2) This faithful stewardship means the proper use of our money, all our money. The stewardship of your money was not given to the government or any other person or organization. Personal responsibility for all our dollars is required.

Like the Pharisees of Jesus' day,who were a government of the people back then, "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matthew 23:4) we have a system that requires us to retain and remunerate expensive professionals to process a complicated and almost undecipherable system in order to be in compliance. Jesus was against this then and I think He is against it now.

<SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">

[pattygreen 5]

Cleosmom, I know this article is a long read, but the author truly says it best, and I hope you will read it and get my view on the government stealing issue.

Government Theft

by David Servant

You shall not steal....You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet...anything that belongs to your neighbor (Ex. 20:15, 16).

Most people, Christians and non-Christians alike, agree that it is wrong to take what belongs to someone else. Every nation and culture has laws against theft. The God-given conscience of every human resonates with a built-in knowledge that stealing is ethically wrong.

God is so deeply opposed to theft that when He chose Ten Commandments among potentially hundreds that He could have written with His finger on tablets of stone, "Thou shalt not steal" was listed there as number eight.

The sin of coveting, which is always a precursor to theft, is also found in that same list of ten essentials. God is deeply opposed to even the desire to possess what belongs to someone else. In essence He is telling us, "Don't even entertain the idea of taking what isn't yours."

Under the Mosaic Law, thieves who were caught had to repay their victims anywhere from two to five times what they had stolen (see Ex. 22:1-7), an obvious divine commentary on the gravity of the sin of theft.

The New Testament underscores the fundamental evil of theft by teaching that it is a transgression against the second greatest commandment. If I love my neighbor, I will not steal from him:

For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder,

You shall not steal

, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Rom. 13:9, emphasis added).

Similarly, theft violates the Golden Rule. I don't want anyone to steal from me, so I should not steal from anyone else.

Theft is so grievous to God that He warns that no thief will inherit His kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Heaven's doors are closed tight to thieves.

All of this is to say that the fundamental ethical evil of theft is well established. No one has any excuse to claim ignorance in this regard.

Obviously, if it is wrong for one person to steal from another person, it is wrong for two people, or three people, or three thousand people to covet what belongs to someone else and steal it from him. Group theft is just as ethically wrong as individual theft. And this leads me to my topic. Governments can be guilty of theft, and they frequently are.

Before you think I'm about to advocate that taxation is theft, let me clarify.

Human governments have the God-given right to tax their citizens in order to provide services that governments can best provide for the good of all its citizens, such as protection from foreign enemies, a system of courts, public roads, and more. Scripture instructs Christians to pay their taxes and honor those in authority (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:17).

When governments cross the line, however, from providing services for the benefit of all its citizens to exploiting its citizens for the benefit of government officials or taxing some of its citizens for the benefit of others, that amounts to theft.

We generally abhor the world's dictators and regimes who steal from the citizens they should be serving. Yet we've grown quite accustomed to our government "spreading the wealth"---so much so that very few of us even identify it as being theft. Consider this: Any modern-day Robin Hood, if apprehended, would be prosecuted as a criminal by any government regardless of how noble his motives might be. Yet many of those same governments play the part of Robin Hood all the time, taking money from some and redistributing it to others in the form of special benefits.

Once a representative government adopts a policy of "spreading the wealth," its citizens are set at war against each other, as everyone clamors to get his or her slice of the national pie. When does it end? One hundred years ago the U.S. government spent only 8% of our gross national product. Last year it spent 43%.

You've probably heard the famous quote attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.

Former Prime Minister of Great Britain Margaret Thatcher is often attributed to a similar bit of wisdom:

The only problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.

Let's consider some specific cases of theft by the U.S. government.

Although most of us don't mind paying taxes to help provide for those who are genuinely disadvantaged, to forcibly take money by taxation in order to take care of the disadvantaged is theft. Again, if any individual forcibly took money from someone and gave it to someone else who was disadvantaged, he would be prosecuted as a thief. So how is such an act made right if a government does it?

I am, of course, not arguing against helping the disadvantaged. All of us have a God-given responsibility to voluntarily help the disadvantaged (without encouraging irresponsibility, as do government welfare programs). But the key word is "voluntarily." And if governments got out of the charity business, taxes could be lowered, and everyone would have more money to voluntarily give to disadvantaged people or to organizations that serve the disadvantaged.

Of course, it could be argued that, unless our government forced us to be charitable through tax revenues that are distributed to the disadvantaged, the disadvantaged would remain in peril. Perhaps that is so, but on the other hand, I wonder how many people justify their personal uncharitableness with the excuse, "The government takes care of the disadvantaged, so there is no need for me to be burdened with helping them." Regardless, when governments take money from some and give it to others, it is theft.

One "disadvantaged" group that the U.S. government assists are the elderly. (I put the word "disadvantaged" in quotes because not all elderly people are in that category. If you don't believe me, visit Florida sometime.) The largest expenditure of the U.S. government revolves around caring for our elderly population through Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Together, they account for about 40% of the federal budget. If you are of the age to benefit from those programs, I'm sure you appreciate them.

If you are employed, you may think that about 7.5% of your earnings are taken from each paycheck for Social Security and Medicare. Your employer, however, is required to match that amount, paying approximately another 7.5%. So all 15% could (and should) be yours if it wasn't taken in taxes.

You probably realize that 15% is not invested to wait for you to reach retirement. It is distributed to current retirees. Of course, most of those retirees paid Social Security and Medicare taxes themselves, and they feel as if they have a right to the benefits. And those of us who are still in the work force don't mind paying those taxes now as long as future workers will be forced to fund our retirement years. For that reason, few of us consider the entire program to be theft, taking money from one person and giving it to another.

The system will continue to work as long as workers significantly outnumber retirees. But with the current changing ratio of workers to retirees, it seems inevitable that Social Security taxes will go up and/or benefits for retirees will go down. It won't seem fair then, especially if you ultimately don't receive as much as you paid into the system. It will seem like government theft, which it has been from the beginning. The very first recipient of monthly Social Security benefits paid in a total of $22.54 over three years and collected a total of $22,889 before she died. The government took other people's money and gave it to her.

I am, of course, not advocating not caring for the elderly. Everyone should of course voluntarily care for their elderly parents if there is a need (like just about everyone in the U.S. did before 1940, and the majority of world still does), and if they have the means should help other elderly folks if such folks have a valid need. Think about it: If your income increased by 15% for the rest of your working life, I'll bet you could not only better prepare for your own old age, but you could also do something to care for some elderly folks right now as well. How many people in their twenties and thirties, if given the choice, would prefer to have the government take 15% of their earnings for Social Security and Medicare or to invest that 15% themselves for their own retirement and to have something they could use to care for elderly parents who need assistance?

What is abhorrent to most all taxpayers is the thought of the government taking their money via taxation and redistributing it to those who are not deserving in the least, such as people who should be paying taxes themselves, but aren't, or deceptive people who could work, but don't. It feels like theft when the government bails people out of their self-inflicted problems using the taxes paid by people who have acted responsibly. Again, those same governments would prosecute any individual who did what they are doing.

I've occasionally heard Christians argue that our government should be "spreading the wealth" on the basis of what Jesus taught about caring for the poor. But Jesus was not speaking to governments when He preached about caring for the poor; He was speaking to individuals. Voluntary sharing is what Jesus had in mind. Keep in mind that Jesus is also the one who inspired Paul to write, "If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either" (2 Th. 3:10). God does not want governments, or Christians for that matter, to reward laziness or immorality.

How about another example?

It could be argued that graduated tax rates are a form of theft. When the rich pay a greater percentage of their earnings in taxes, it benefits those of us who pay not only less taxes, but a lesser percentage. It is just another form of "spreading the wealth." Just for the record, I'm writing, not as an angry rich person, but as a lower-income person who benefits every day from the taxes paid by the wealthy.

Similarly, and on a more local scale, wealthy people who can afford bigger homes pay more in school property taxes than those with smaller homes, effectively helping to provide a better education for the children of less wealthy families. That is also a form of government theft, or "spreading the wealth," taking from some and giving it to others. The entire system of school property taxes is grossly unfair to those who never have children and home-schoolers, who receive no benefit from their property taxes yet help pay for the education of everyone else's children.

The many "pork barrel" earmarks that are attached to so much of the legislation that pass through our congress are yet another example of government theft. Why should every taxpayer in the U.S. pay for special projects that only benefit very limited numbers of people? How is that any different than theft?

Perhaps the grandest example of government theft is the government's borrowing trillions of dollars, a debt that will either be repaid with dollars that are worth less because so many more have been "printed"---which amounts to stealing from the government's creditors---or a debt that will be passed on to future generations, which amounts to stealing from our children and grandchildren. That enormous debt is the ultimate "spreading of the wealth," as the future earnings of our unborn grandchildren are spread to us. It illustrates the worst form of greed imaginable---to knowingly borrow money which benefits one generation with the full knowledge that the debts incurred will be paid by future generations. Currently, every U.S. taxpayer's share of the national debt is $113,000. What are the chances of you paying off, through tax legislation, your share of that debt before you die? Incidentally, as long as we continue to cast our votes to keep thieves in office, we're complicit in stealing from our grandchildren.

OK, I've transgressed two cardinal rules by bringing up both religion and politics! Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I invite your feedback. Please be kind. I hope to publish varied excerpts from your feedback next month. If you wish to remain anonymous, please let me know.

©2010 David Servant

[Cleo's Mom 257]

No way am I reading some long, conservative, bible-based bashing of our government. Our government is based on the constitution, not the bible. We pay taxes as part of our responsibility to contribute to our country and citizenship.

If you don't want to pay taxes, go live somewhere else, but quit trying to justify your claim that paying taxes is stealing. The only stealing that is being done is by corporate america and the rich who are laughing as they line their pockets on the backs of the middle class whose ignorant members do their bidding for them.

[andrea0121 28]

You need to read the bible. All of it. Not just pull a verse out of nowhere and expect it to make sense. Once you read it and continue to read it more and more, God reveals more and more to the reader. He explains his words as being "alive".

For the Word of God is Living and Active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

The Old Testament was written to cast a foreshadow of the things that were to come. (Jesus dying on the cross in order to save mankind from their sins) Those who lived in those days looked forward to the coming of the Christ and put their faith in God who said He would send a Savior to mankind. Because of their faith in the promise of God, which would soon come, they can live in Heaven one day.

The New Testament was written to show the world what God had already done in sending his Son Jesus to save themn from their sins. We today, look back to the cross and put our faith in God who sent his Savior to mankind. Because of our faith in the promise of God, which already came to pass, We can live in Heaven one day.:eek:

It's all about faith.

How does this even answer my question?

Born-agains cherry pick verses out of the bible all the time. Hence the hate and condemnation of homosexuals.

I have strong faith in the Lord. I also know that you or no one else can tell me who or who isn't getting into Heaven. No one on this earth will read and interpret the Bible the same as anyone else. It's impossible.

So, you keep on keepin on, whatever helps you sleep better at night.

[Will_B_Healthy 0]

No way am I reading some long, conservative, bible-based bashing of our government. Our government is based on the constitution, not the bible. We pay taxes as part of our responsibility to contribute to our country and citizenship.

If you don't want to pay taxes, go live somewhere else, but quit trying to justify your claim that paying taxes is stealing. The only stealing that is being done is by corporate america and the rich who are laughing as they line their pockets on the backs of the middle class whose ignorant members do their bidding for them.

I guess that render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's thing doesn't play in Steward's article. Not surprising.

The deeper irony lies in the behavior of the Christian Right (who seldom are BTW). As this article illustrates, the CR will attack the government that has protected the diversity of faith to freely practice for over two-hundred years, but should anyone turn this coin over and suggest applying the law of the land equally to all agencies including the taxing houses of faith, the CR cries foul. The semantics of what defines a non-profit and the difference between an income and an allowance ooze to the surface. The CR have a unilateral code allowing them the freedom to criticize but not be criticized.

There are some people who when they offer a critique include a suggestion for improvement. It is not enough to simply find the rats and cockroaches, you need to DO something about getting rid of them or creating a place where the vermin will not invade. That is not the motis operandi of the CR. They may till the soil and spray herbicide but never do they plant a seed let alone nurture it to feed the needy, house the homeless, encourage the downtrodden. The CR often uses scripture to buttress or emphasize their position, but just as often to camouflage. Yet the tipping point is always money for them: they must have it, having it is good, not having it is not, depriving others from having it is acceptable, sharing or redistributing it is unthinkable. They feel entitled to amass it without government intervention or control, suggesting anything to the contrary is socialism.

BTW before the Cold War, there was a strong and growing populist movement of socialists, led by Eugene Debs for one. American socialists were the champions for the labor unions and leaders in legislation to provide both rights and protections for our working class. They empowered the middle class and battled the elite in court, in the street, in the voting booths. The Soviets so corrupted socialism that it remains a pariah in the minds (though ever so narrow) of most Americans.

The system of taxation which began three thousand years ago is not perfect nor fair but until something better is suggested, it remains one of two constants. Well, make that three: death, taxes, and the Grace of God.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Will_B_Healthy
caught another Gremlin