YBSRobin's Blog

MY PRIVATE PART DIED

An old man, Mr. Wallace, was living in a nursing home.

One day he appeared to be very sad and depressed.

Nurse Tracy asked him if there was anything wrong,

'Yes, Nurse Tracy ,' said Mr. Wallace.

'My Private Part died today, and I am very sad.'

Knowing her patients were a little forgetful and sometimes a little crazy, she replied, 'Oh, I'm so sorry, Mr. Wallace. Please accept my condolences.'

The following day, Mr. Wallace was walking down the hall with his Private Part hanging out of his pajamas.

He met Nurse Tracy. 'Mr. Wallace,' she said, 'You shouldn't be walking down the hall like that. Please put your Private Part back inside your pajamas.'

'But, Nurse Tracy I can't,' replied Mr. Wallace. 'I told you yesterday that my Private Part died.

'Yes,' said Nurse Tracy, 'you did tell me that, but why is it hanging out
of your pajamas?'

'Well,' he replied, 'Today is the viewing.'


(Posted MyFoxOrlando)

MY PRIVATE PART DIED
      
      An old man, Mr. Wallace, was living in a nursing home.
      
      One day he appeared to be very sad and depressed.
      
      Nurse Tracy asked him if there was anything wrong,

      'Yes, Nurse Tracy ,' said Mr. Wallace.
      
      'My Private Part died today, and I am very sad.'
      
      Knowing her patients were a little forgetful and sometimes a little crazy,
she replied, 'Oh, I'm so sorry, Mr. Wallace. Please accept my condolences.'

      The following day, Mr. Wallace was walking down the hall with his Private
Part hanging out of his pajamas.

      He met Nurse Tracy. 'Mr. Wallace,' she said, 'You shouldn't be walking
down the hall like that.  Please put your Private Part back inside your
pajamas.'

      'But, Nurse Tracy I can't,' replied Mr. Wallace. 'I told you yesterday
that my Private Part died.

      'Yes,' said Nurse Tracy, 'you did tell me that, but why is it hanging out
of your pajamas?'

      'Well,' he replied, 'Today is the viewing.'

(Posted MyFoxTampaBay)

In chatting back and forth with PastorD in this topic:

   http://community.myfoxtampabay.com/blogs/YBSRobin/2008
/08/15/Out_of_Faith_Freedom_or_Greed  

 

I noticed a problem that has occurred and thought I would only share it with all of the TambaBay Bloggers as I have been having problems with not receiving complete blog comments, I have been having problems with posting my comments from time to time and it not coming up, and taking a couple of tries on a couple of occasions to get my comment posted, and I have seen accusations flying between others of people deleting comments. With the problem I came across, I thought I would share it and let TampaBay know as well.    This is a copy of one of the problems I have found:  

 

Delete YBSRobin
Aug 16, 2008 | 8:35 PM

And by the way, just to make a note, as I've noticed a couple of odd things happening with the site this evening, I just posted my response to yours and it was posted at 10:30 pm and I see when it posted it stated 8:32 pm, so if you are having any difficulties, I thought I would just point that out as it may be something with the Fox site going on.

Delete YBSRobin
Aug 16, 2008 | 8:59 PM

I just noticed something however, when I view the comments through the Fox 35 site, the times are accurate, when it's through TampaBay, it's way off, so if anyone is having problems don't blame the user as something may be wrong with the TampaBay site for the time being: example the same comment viewed on the Fox 35 shows that it posted at 10:35 as shown below (and above the same on TampaBay is 8:35)

YBSRobin
Aug 16, 2008 | 10:35 PM

And by the way, just to make a note, as I've noticed a couple of odd things happening with the site this evening, I just posted my response to yours and it was posted at 10:30 pm and I see when it posted it stated 8:32 pm, so if you are having any difficulties, I thought I would just point that out as it may be something with the Fox site going on.

========

It may not mean anything however, I have noticed people accusing others of deleting comments or people stating that they are not deleting comments and do not know what happened to them...so heads up, hopefully people will look and notice this problem before accusations start flying.

Page 1 of 1

 

(Posted MyFoxTampaBay  -  11:55 pm)

Recently I came across discussion of  "More Politics & Pastor Fallout," which prompted another topic to be lightly touched on, "Separation of Church and State,"  and that brought about some interesting "thoughts and opinions" that I shared with others and would like to share the same with MyFoxTampaBay as well.  In doing so, in thinking about the way religion is depicted today, prompted me to want to ask an opinion of those after sharing the below articles.   We know many have their own opinions on expressing their Faith, but it seems that on every street, you will see at least one or two constructed Churches, advertising for your visit.  Even in the smallest of towns there are so many Churches, one will even find the smallest of Churches that appear to hold a congregation of perhaps 10 or less. So why so many Churches for our one True and Only God?  Has it become such a business that is profitable because one can say that they have the right of expression without interference of the Government?  No wonder our Forefathers had the insight to want to keep the Religion and Politics separate.  So with that in mind and after reviewing the articles below,  

*  Do you think that Man Made Religion is done out of "True Faith" or that out of an  "Expression for Freedom?"   

*  Or, do you believe it's an excuse for many individuals to be able to conduct a "tax-free" business legally? 

Article I:    "Jefferson’s Wall"

Because the government may not engage in the promotion or endorsement of any particular belief system, it is automatically required by law to honor and respect all of the varying forms of belief and non-belief expressed by the people. What the First Amendment created was, in the words of Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association, "a wall of separation between church and state." The protections of freedom guaranteed by this wall of separation include both the individual right to free choice and to privacy of choice. That is to say that not only is the individual free to make a personal choice regarding belief or disbelief in any or all religions, but that the person cannot be required to disclose that choice or have that choice used against him or her as a basis for discrimination. We are all equal under the law of the land, no matter in what we choose to believe or disbelieve. This concept was reinforced in Justice Black's decision in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious belief beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state."

The "wall" that was erected pertains not only to the establishment of a religion, but also to the establishment of religious codes of morality. For example, a given religion may believe that divorce is acceptable only on the grounds of adultery. Civil codes cannot be limited by what that particular religion accepts as right and proper. Civil morality must be secular morality, which is to say that the acceptable reasons for legal divorce cannot be restricted by what a religious group claims to be proper. Therefore legal divorce becomes possible on other grounds ranging from incompatibility to infidelity. Any given religious organization may have its own grounds for acknowledging the divorce, but that policy remains within the faith system and has no legitimacy or significance for the general populace.

Some religious groups may condemn homosexuality on the basis of an interpretation of what is, for them, authoritative or revealed divine commands. Other religious groups, using the same sources, may provide a different interpretation that accepts homosexuality. For example, the Metropolitan Community Churches are Christian churches whose membership is composed largely of Christian homosexuals. Governments may not pass legislation based solely on religious morality; and although legislation may be cognizant of the varying belief systems, the legislation must embrace the social, political and personal rights of all people, including homosexuals. In other words, civil laws that formulate communal moral and ethical standards must be secular—not derived solely from a religious belief system." (end quote)   The important clause to refer to here is as follows:

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state."

So therefore, it goes back to assessing the participation of certain Churches within the race of the Presidential Candidates. Churches should not be allowed to have it both ways and that goes the same for the Government    

 

Article II:   What does the Constitution say about religion? (It may not be what you think.)

By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas

As America's finest continue shedding their blood in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do well to take stock of who we are and what we're up against. What we're up against is a fanatical cadre of theocrats bent on imposing their view of Theo on everybody else. At gunpoint.

Who we are is a little more complicated. On paper, we're the freedom people. I say "on paper" because that's where it all starts. We have the oldest written Constitution on the planet. We can be proud of that. What we can't be proud of is that many Americans don't seem to know what it says, particularly when it comes to our nation's first freedom: religious freedom.

(Illustration by Bob Laird, USA TODAY)

Ask most Americans what the Constitution says about God, and their answers may surprise you.

"One nation under God?"

Nope, that's the  Pledge of Allegiance.

"Oh, yeah, right, right. How about, 'Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights'?"

Sorry, but that's the Declaration of Independence.

"Hmmmm."

Mostly what you'll get is a lot of blank stares. Trust me. I've tried it in nearly 50 states. Fully 55% of the country, according to a recent survey by the First Amendment Center, believes that the U.S. Constitution establishes us as a "Christian nation." Worse still, while nearly all Americans say freedom of religion is important, only 56% think it should apply to all religious groups. The truth is that the Constitution says nothing about God. Not one word. And, you can bet that some of the local clergy back in the 1780s howled about it. Newspapers, pamphlets and sermons decried the draters' failure to acknowledge God.

One, and only one, reference

Even more interesting is what the Constitution has to say about religion. Although many of the nation's loudest religionists continue to assert that America is a Christian nation in some legal or constitutional sense, the language of the original Constitution itself suggests otherwise. The only reference to religion is tucked away in Article VI and reads: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a Christian nation to me. If you wished to create a Christian nation, wouldn't you at least need to ensure that its leaders were Christian? The No Religious Test Clause stands out because most colonies did have religious qualifications for public office. Many required a belief in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity with some, like the Carolinas, going so far as to require that all elected officials be Protestant.

So, why would the framers of our Constitution do such a thing, and moreover, why two years later would they adopt a constitutional amendment declaring that the new federal government could "make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Was it because they were militant atheists? Hardly. James Madison, the primary architect of our Constitution, studied under the tutelage of Presbyterian-preacher-turned-Princeton-president John Witherspoon and even considered a career in the ministry before opting for politics.

More likely, the framers were concerned about the corrupting influence the institutions of church and state have on each other when either becomes too cozy. These guys knew their history. They had witnessed the blood shed by governments in the name of religion. Europe was nearly destroyed by it. They also knew their politics. The Baptists, Presbyterians and other Evangelicals were fed up with religion that was "established" by the state (as was the Anglican Church in many Southern colonies and the Congregational Church in New England) and were determined to achieve full-throttle religious freedom for all — believers and non-believers alike. It was prominent Virginia Baptist John Leland who declared  "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever!" Pastor Leland went on to assert that "the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did." Leland and his Baptist colleagues played a key role in helping persuade Madison to support a federal Bill of Rights guaranteeing liberty of conscience for all.

What 'separation' really means

America has institutionalized this great theological concept through the political mechanism of the First Amendment. The "no establishment" clause separates the institutions of church and state by prohibiting any government action that has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Government is to remain neutral. No citizen should be advantaged or disadvantaged because of his religious faith.

The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God and government or of religion and politics. The First Amendment limits only the power of government — not the power of the people or of the church. Religious organizations are free to speak out on the issues of the day. They can preach, pray, proselytize, promote and, yes, even endorse candidates if they are foolish enough to do so. (They will, however, have to forfeit their tax exemption if they use church funds, since we don't allow a tax deduction for monies given to partisan causes — just chartiable ones) Again, it is government — not religious organizations — that is restricted by our Constitution.

America's so-called Godless Constitution, with its provisions separating church and state, has given us the strongest political and religious institutions on earth. Among developed nations, no one else believes and worships as much as we Americans. One can only marvel when today's pious pulpiteers clamor for federal dollars for their "faith-based initiatives" or complain that God has been kicked out of the public schools. Perhaps they were praying in school when they should have been studying their history.

====================

So in ending, I believe we need to get back to the basics of becoming a "True, One Nation under God."  "For those who Believe," begin to take "True Religion" seriously and not use it as a means to make money.  Therefore, as I shared with everyone in reference to "Taking God Every Where We Go," perhaps we should do just that, take God with us everywhere we go, then perhaps Churches can be reformed to be One Nation Under God as well.

(Posted MyFoxTampaBay)

Has your wage increases kept up with inflation/cost of living increases?

Many are starting to understand what people are talking about when they hear the term "Middle Class Squeeze."   Take for example, most businesses today has adopted the "cost of living" increase as a form of "pay raise" instead of the old $ 1.00 to $ 2.00 per hour raises that were given way back when for hard work, continued education, and continued growth in skills that benefit the company.  So for many who have stayed in a company for 5 to 10 years, are they truly bringing home the pay level that is deserved?

Take for instance an individual who stays in the same company for many years, not really moving around, staying in the same position, but the skills have increased from continuous education and training.  Each year, a cost of living raise is given, ranging anywhere from 2.3 to 3.9%. 

The inflation rate is about 4%, but realistically most people know the real inflation rate is closer to probably 6% or 7%. So each year the individual that receives the cost of living increase as a raise has around 3% to 4% less buying power then they did the year before or in prior years as well.

A couple of things to think about, more companies require degrees for certain areas. If one chooses per say to have a career with the City, State, or Government, over period of time one could possibly loose 20% - 45% of their standard living.  How will this affect our children coming out of college in the next few years? Can a student afford to repay a student loan, and be able to afford the cost of living that we are at right now? And, how long do you think it will be before the "Middle Class" is stomped down to the level of being considered among the poor, leaving us with only two classes, either being rich or poor?

Inflation getting 'uglier and uglier'

Surging energy prices help drive annual cost-of-living rate rise to 4.2%.

By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer Last Updated: June 13, 2008: 10:21 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The cost of living rose in May as consumers were belted by energy costs, the government said Friday.  The Consumer Price Index, a key inflation reading, rose 4.2% through the 12 months ended in May, according to the Labor Department. This compared to an increase of 3.9% during the 12 months ended in April.  For the month of May, overall CPI rose 0.6%, compared to an increase of 0.2% in April. That's the biggest increase since last November, when the overall CPI surged 0.9%. A consensus of analysts interviewed by Briefing.com had projected an increase of 0.5% for May.

The dramatic increase in energy costs were largely responsible for the overall inflation. Energy costs rose 4.4% in May, and surged 17.4% over the 12 months ending in May, the Labor Department said  "These (CPI) numbers are nowhere near to what we're seeing in the real world," said Peter Beutel, energy analyst for Cameron Hanover, who believed the "real" cost of living has increased at a higher rate than the index shows. "But even these diluted numbers are showing that inflation is getting uglier and uglier and uglier."   Beutel said this puts more pressure on the Federal Reserve to increase the federal funds rate, which he thinks could happen in August or September. The rate is currently at 2%.  The higher that inflation is, the sooner the Fed has to raise rates to help keep a lid on prices," said Beutel.  The index for fuel oil rose 10.4% in May and soared 64% over the 12 months. The gasoline index rose 5.7% in May and surged 20.8% on a year-over-year basis. The index for natural gas rose 5.6% in May, and was up 16.5% over the last year.

Electricity costs also increased, but less dramatically, edging up 0.9% in May, and rising 5.8% over the last 12 months.  As a result, transportation costs increased 2% in May, and jumped 8.1% over the 12 months ending in May. The index for household energy costs climbed 2.8% in May, its fourth consecutive jump, the Labor Department said.  The price of food also pushed up overall costs. Food costs increased 0.3% in May, and jumped 5.1% during the 12 months ending in May. The price of milk was a big influence on the overall price, increasing 10.2% over the 12 months, despite slipping 0.7% in May. The cost of clothing was the one area where consumers got some relief. Apparel costs deflated 0.2% in May, and decreased 0.4% over the 12 months.  The core CPI, which excludes the cost of food and energy, rose 0.2% in May, compared to an increase of 0.1% in April. A consensus of analysts interviewed by Briefing.com had projected an increase of 0.2% for May.

The core CPI rose 2.3% during the 12 months ending in May. 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/13/news/economy/CPI/in

dex.htm?cnn=yes

(Posted MyFoxTampaBay)

Negative campaigning is, of course, hardly a new phenomenon in US politics and, as Professor Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University attests, it is often the quickest way for politicians to grab attention. "That is a stock approach here - candidates use controversial personal attacks as a means of attracting free news coverage," he says.

They promised positive, high-minded campaigns which focused on issues rather than personalities.

But as the race for the White House intensifies, the two contenders have increasingly gone on the attack.

Republican John McCain has earned huge publicity for an advert mocking rival Barack Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world", juxtaposing the Democrat with gossip magazine regulars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

But Senator Obama has not hesitated to lambast his opponent and his allies as "cynical", "desperate" and "in the pocket of Big Oil".

Negative campaigning is, of course, hardly a new phenomenon in US politics and, as Professor Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University attests, it is often the quickest way for politicians to grab attention.

"That is a stock approach here - candidates use controversial personal attacks as a means of attracting free news coverage," he says.

Regular blows

Senator McCain has so far been the more forthright of the two contenders when it comes to going on the offensive.

The Republican has accused his opponent, who promises to withdraw troops from Iraq, of being prepared to "lose a war in order to win a political campaign".

A McCain campaign advert also charged Mr Obama with canceling a visit to injured US soldiers.

But in the blue corner, Mr Obama has aimed regular blows at his rival.

He has accused Mr McCain of taking the "low road" in the election and dismissed his time in the US Senate as "years of inaction".

An Obama advert accused Mr McCain of practicing the "policies of the past", using images of him with President George W Bush.

The McCain camp also protested when John Kerry, the Democratic candidate in 2004, said the 71-year-old was "confused" over Iraq.

The tone of the contest took an angrier turn after Mr Obama warned an audience that the Republican would try to scare voters about how he looked unlike "all those other presidents on the dollar bills".

A McCain aide responded furiously, attacking Mr Obama for having "played the race card" - all previous US presidents having been white men.

Mr Obama said no-one had thought his comments were accusations of racism until Mr McCain's team "started pushing it".

If Mr Obama has so far avoided the jugular, it is only because his campaign team do not want to tarnish his brand of idealism and hope, Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia believes.

"The candidate of fresh, optimistic change cannot afford to go too negative," Mr Sabato says.

"McCain is also now given more leeway to go negative since he is the underdog. It isn't fair, but nothing about politics is fair.

'Battle-tested'

"Political scientists and communications scholars will tell you that negative ads tend to have more information in them than positive ads," he says. "We see positive ads that are false or misleading, too."

Professor John Geer of Vanderbilt University, Tennessee, is the author of In Defense of Negativity - a spirited defence of the role of attack adverts in the political process.

He says it is vital that candidates are held up to scrutiny and examined under fire.

"Being president is a tough job - ask Bush or Clinton," he adds.

"Having a negative campaign run against you is a test of your toughness. You come out of the election battle-tested."

The complete article can be found on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7543859.stm

When the "Big Boys" of our Nation can't behave, makes one wonder why our Nation is in so much trouble and why other Countries are quickly learning not to take us serious any longer! 

(Posted MyFoxTampaBay)

"The United States, the European Union and Nato appealed for an immediate end to the fighting and for the crisis to be resolved through direct talks. President Bush pledged US support for Georgia’s territorial integrity after holding talks with Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, in Beijing where both men were attending the opening of the Olympic Games."


Russia and Georgia were on the brink of war last night after Moscow responded to a Georgian offensive in the breakaway republic of South Ossetia by sending tanks, troops and war-planes across the border.


More than a thousand civilians were reported to have been killed and large parts of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, were reduced to ruins as a conflict with potentially global repercussions erupted after months of rising tension. Georgia announced last night that it was withdrawing half of its 2,000 troops from Iraq as it ordered an all-out military mobilisation.


The country is the West’s strongest ally in the region, one of the staunchest supporters of America’s War on Terror and a vital conduit for Western oil and gas supplies from Central Asia.


“We have Russian tanks moving in. We have continuous Russian bombardment,” President Saakashvili declared as he appealed for international support. “Russia is fighting a war with us in our own territory.”


After a week of skirmishes with separatist militias, Georgian forces began an offensive on Thursday night to seize control of South Ossetia, which broke away in a civil war in the early 1990s and has since sought closer links with Russia.


Russia responded by sending units of its 58th Army, including tanks and hundreds of troops, into South Ossetia while its aircraft reportedly attacked military targets in Georgia itself.


Eduard Kokoity, the leader of South Ossetia’s self-styled government, said that more than 1,400 people had died in the Georgian offensive. The International Committee of the Red Cross said that hospitals were overflowing. Reporters saw trucks bringing wounded Georgian soldiers out of South Ossetia to a military hospital in Gori.


Russia said that at least ten of its peacekeepers in South Ossetia had been killed and another thirty wounded. Georgia claimed to have shot down five Russian jets. Mr Saakashvili told CNN: “It’s like the attack into Afghanistan in 1979. It’s like Czechoslovakia when the Soviet tanks rolled in. If they get away with this in Georgia, the world will be in trouble.”


South Ossetia is little bigger than Luxembourg. but an all-out war would have global repercussions and could leave Russia with a stranglehold on Central Asia’s vast oil and gas supplies. Analysts said that Georgia’s bid for Nato membership, to be discussed at a summit in December, would be complicated greatly by continuing hostilities with Russia. If an increasingly assertive Kremlin succeeds in imposing its will on its tiny neighbour, it might be encouraged to do the same elsewhere in the former Soviet Union.


This news was discussed as the Russian Athletes made their walk of Nations in the opening program of the Olympics.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/arti
cle4489149.ece

There is so much negativity and whining about Obama (more so than McCain), that it's really getting so old and so sad!  I don't know what's worse, reading the same thing about Obama over, and over, and over again, or the Caylee Anthony story?!   I wonder how each of us would feel if we thought we were good enough to run for something and then have people tear us apart for the sake of letting out all of our opinionated frustrations, arguing who is right and who is wrong?  Many would say, well, "you wouldn't catch me up there running for office."  Well, that says a lot about the individuals who feel they have what it takes to do something about the sad state our US is in, verses those of us who sit behind a computer and do nothing but complain about it.

When it comes to stating who is for raising taxes and who is not, lately I see quite a few statements referring one to this "Snopes" sight. Well, who needs "snopes" when history shows proof of taxes always being increased when a Democrat is in office?  All we need is common sense to remember the past. The proposed tax increases are no different today from any other Democrat that has been in office yesterday.  When one really looks at the pattern of the Democratic Party, to me, it sure seems similar to becoming almost like a communistic society, take everything we have to redistribute to everyone else so every US Citizen will not go without.   Whether they work hard for what they have or sit on their rear ends to collect a Welfare Check and whine about how hard things are.  According to the Democrats in Office, we should all live with the bare necessities while they live like kings. This is nothing new!  And on the other hand, the US Citizens want more luxuries in life, and who do you think is going to pay for it? Where does one think the money will come from?  McCain may not be for raising taxes, however I remember from past history, many Republicans stated the same thing during their campaign promises and once they got into office, their promises changed.  At least I can say one good thing about the Democratic Party, in looking "back then," and "today," at least they are up front in telling us what they plan on doing or what they think is needed in bringing back our economy.   There is the "good and bad" side of each Party running. As I've seen most people state lately, I agree when it comes time to vote, it will be the one that is the "lesser of the two evils."  

And to be honest, I really can't wait until the Elections are here and finally over with, because the same old "Obama" and "McCain" bashings are really getting old.  I have to laugh when I read about complaints on how the Media delivers their stories and then scroll through  the political topics here to see the same negativity that is constantly complained about and practiced by the public itself.  Now, how "ironic" is that?

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

(Posted on the Fox 35 Orlando Page)  

 

Some one not too long ago, asked a really good question, "Do we need to go to Church to Worship?"  As many of us are going through hardships at this time, and getting caught up in every day life, including myself, I know I seem to forget the important things in life. And I'm not afraid to admit it, even I need a reminder from time to time of what's most important in this life. And that is the "time" we have been gifted, and blessed with each day that I and my family wake up, and the "time" we are gifted and blessed with to spend this time together with our family and friends! 

Look how many different countries do not have buildings to worship in, but yet still gather and follow God's Word. In the Bible, Jesus stated you can tear down the temple and within three days Jesus could rebuild it again. What Jesus was referring to is His dying and rising again on the 3rd day. Our bodies are the Temple of God and worship begins there. If you go into Church follow the footsteps of being, what's defined in man's eyes as a good Christian, then you walk out and pass by a poor person in the streets and look the other way, or in today's time, close a door in a co-workers face or belittle someone for wrongful gain, what have you learned?  Did you take God with you when you left the Church, or did you leave God behind?  Is God one that you visit only one to two times a week when your fellow man dictates you to?  Or do you talk to God everyday, taking Him with you where ever you go, and be thankful for yet one more morning, and day that has been granted to you?  

For me, prayer is for building my self esteem, building the strength I need to believe in myself, to help my family, and others around me each day. I and my family do this 24/7. Faith is believing in the good of others around you, and having the faith to believe in something you cannot see or touch and having faith that good will come out in everyone around us. We do this 24/7. Love is not just loving your spouse and family, but having the love of doing what's right to make a good positive difference is someone's life, love is being able to forgive someone when they make a mistake or fall short of what we expect. We do this 24/7 as well. Look at all the mistakes we make in life everyday, God is so patient with us, forgives us, never leaves our side, and is with us where ever we go, can we say the same for us when we walk side by side with our friends, family, or people we don't even know?

As one stated earlier, one cannot hide from God, nor can one hide from what has been done wrong either. Love is also having the mind-set of righting a wrong one may have done. There is so much more, and to think that you can wrap it all up in a couple of hours a week at Church, is thinking on the wrong level. I'm not saying that one should not go to Church either, as many people need to gather to gain the strength they need as a group in order to stay within what they consider to be good and right. The Bible is the Word of God that teaches us how to live, how to eat, and how to care for others that will benefit everyone. The Bible also shows history of how man kind has lived, and in the Bible, it shows because man kind is the way man kind is, we will always be repeating ourselves in history, destroying what we try to create instead of learning how to live with what's already created and take care of it so creation will remain with us. So to answer the question, one can not limit God to four walls and a man made religion. God follows you and is with you where ever you choose to go. And what you choose to do with your knowledge is a gift in itself, it's just up to us to do the right thing with it.

 Thank you for allowing me to share this with you.