Hehehe, I'll be towel boy! :D
| You scored as Football. You should play football- its the most popular high school and college sport, and creates a ton of school spirit. |
What sport are you meant for??
created with QuizFarm.com
| You scored as Football. You should play football- its the most popular high school and college sport, and creates a ton of school spirit. |
What sport are you meant for??
created with QuizFarm.com
Let's get a little back story first, shall we? For when these stories were written down back in the day, it wasn't broken up into neat little chapters and verses, they were one long, continuous tale. Our tale today starts a little while ago. God and Abraham (Lot's uncle) have been bargaining, so God decided to send some angels to Sodom and see if any righteous person did indeed live in the city. God said he wouldn't destroy the city
Genesis 19:1-11 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they replied, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door.
Everybody. Young, old, every corner of the city. The actual Hebrew used in these passages really does mean "everybody," not just "men," although when the King James was translated into English, it was common for the word "men" to be used when talking about a mixed group of people; the masculine is the default noun for groups of people, much like we today use the word "guys" when referring to a group of persons of mixed gender.
the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Now lets look at the words used as "sins" to see how they relate to homosexuality or same-sex relations:
Jer 23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
Eze 16:49-50 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].
HE FELL OFF HIS ASS AND HAD A CONCUSSION, PEOPLE. Well, okay, let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment. He truly converted, was blind for three days, and some dude named Ananias was "called" by the lord to go to Saul/Paul, heal his blindness from beholding the glory of God, and then Saul/Paul would begin preaching in the name of God. Fuzzy-warm, yes? Happily ever after...
- And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
- And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
- And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
- And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
- And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
- And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
- And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
- And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought [him] into Damascus.
- And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
Are we paying attention? Let's look at what we have here from Paul's own mouth. In Acts, Paul has his "vision." He then "Straightway" begins preaching in Damascus, amazing the people and basically "wowing" them. He supposedly "confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ." And then "many days later," a bunch of Jews plotted to kill him so he ran away to Jerusalem. He hook sup with Barnabas, and he in turn takes him to meet the apostles, who were afraid of him because he used to be Saul the persecutor and killer of followers of Christ. After some talk, they accept him as the real deal, and then they all go on a revival tour all over Jerusalem. Got it? That's Acts.
Acts 9:19-29: "And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 26:19-21: "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."
Galatians 1:15-23: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Bible Scholars now predict a 98% probability of a nuclear terrorist bomb at the United Nations, on the Sabbath from Friday evening June 30th to Saturday evening July 1st.
But how can they convince New Yorkers that this threat is real? This is an unprecedented threat that comes from biblical interpretational Intel. Should it be taken seriously?
(PRWEB) June 19, 2006 -- Well, if it came from regular, non biblical lntel sources then the situation would be very straightforward. The procedure would be that the Intelligence Services would hold a press conference and announce a credible nuclear threat to Midtown at least 10 days in advance of the date, in order to give people enough time to plan an orderly retreat from Manhattan. This would hopefully not create too much of a panic because many city dwellers are last minute types, so the exodus would be spread over the next 10 days. They wouldn't even have to give the details of the intel behind the threat. They could just represent that they had sufficient evidence to evacuate Midtown and that they could not say any more for reasons of national security.
So really New Yorkers would leave Midtown due to the credibility of the US Intelligence Services.
But what credibility do the US Intelligence Services actually have? Did they not fund, arm, support and empower Bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan? Did they not fund arm promote and empower Saddam Hussein against the fundamentalists in Iraq and Iran? And who was it that opened the door to the Iranian fundamentalist revolution in 1979 by flying Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris to Iran to replace the Shah of Iran when he put the oil price up?
In all seriousness is there any major security threat to the US anywhere on the globe which hasn't been "fuelled" by the Frankenstein syndrome policies of our intelligence services. How good was their WMD intel in Iraq? What kind of a post war strategy sends 200,000 armed Baath party members home with their guns and tells them: You will have no part in the new Iraq?
So let us not have our thinking clouded by the James Bond status of intelligence operatives. The reality is that their track record is no better than that of the Bible Scholars of the Lords' Witnesses, who are now on their 2nd publicised date for this UN bomb. But who have also correctly predicted from the Bible the date of the Beslan atrocity in Russia, 2 years ago, the date of the G8 summit in Gleneagles last year and the date of the announcement of the UN Peace Building Commission at the start of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. All 3 of these correct dates were advertised in advance in the Independent Newspaper in the UK and in the USA Today newspaper in the US (New York state coverage only).
So to the New Yorker with faith in God, their track record and their credibility must be at least comparable to that of the intelligence services. They may be kooks but they are no worse than the spooks!
Don't forget that the US administration are all going to government nuclear fallout shelters on June 19th see: Back to the Bunker.
From a religious standpoint, this press release is announcing what the old testament prophets Isaiah, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Malachi and what the apostle Saint Peter call: "The day of Jehovah." That "day" is a time period lasting 22 biblical lunar months. It starts on 2006Tammuz3 (June 30/July 1) with the first birth pang of the Kingdom of God, and ends when Jesus comes to earth again on 2008Iyyar29 (May 5/6), to gather all those with faith in God together for the post tribulation rapture on 2008Tammuz1 (June 6/7). During this "day," the various physical disasters of biblical proportions, many of which are nuclear, are described by the bible as the birth pangs of a woman, which woman is the holy spirit, God's wife, 144,000 of his loyal angels. She gives birth at the rapture. The birth pangs are an expansion of her womb, which is the last true Christian church. The way to deal with these coming disasters is to focus on the baby to come and not on the pain of the birth pang.
So if you live in New York, and you have more faith in God than you do in intelligence services, then you know what to do at the end of this month. Their first mistaken date was the first witness, this new date is the second witness. For God gives everyone a second chance. For more on this see True Bible Code.
| You scored as Out and Proud Queer. You're the Out and Proud Queer. Everyone knows you're gay, and if they don't, they soon will! Just watch out for those rural parts of America, where Rainbows are something shot at with shotguns by rednecks!|
What gay personality are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
This does indeed sound like a governor who doesn't put up with any shit, whether it would work in his favor or against. So Mr. Smith isn't some martyr for Christians, he is simply another person who crossed a line the governor had already made very clear.
"In early 2005, former aide Joseph F. Steffen Jr. was fired after acknowledging that he spread rumors about Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a political rival of the governor's, on the Internet. In May of last year, the governor fired the head of an Eastern Shore judicial nominating committee after the official used a derogatory term for Mexicans in his personal Web log."
Specifically, in part 2 of the definition, it states "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." Indulgence would be the key word, I suppose. But when it comes to a public forum, a political body supposedly for the people by the people, can dissension be tolerated by the so-called "tolerant"?
- capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
- A. sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
B. the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
- the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
- A. (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult with repeated use or exposure [immunological tolerance to a virus] [an addict's increasing tolerance for a drug]
(2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor
B. the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food
| You scored as Modern Liberal. You are a Modern Liberal. Science and historical study have shown so much of the Bible to be unreliable and that conservative faith has made Jesus out to be a much bigger deal than he actually was. Discipleship involves continuing to preach and practice Jesus' measure of love and acceptance, and dogma is not important in today's world. You are influenced by thinkers like Bultmann and Bishop Spong.|
What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com
Whoa! Satan has a hold on my mind? Huh, who'd've thunk it?
May the Lord bless you and keep you! I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to let you know I have submitted your name before our church to receive prayers and affirmations. We are hoping that you can repent of your satanic ways and come to the light of our Father, and that the Holy Spirit will descend upon you and relinquish the hold that Satan has placed over your mind. Even though you don't believe in God, He believes in You!
Sincerely in Christ's blood,
I guess it comes down to who you trust, doesn't it? People like Adam place their faith in an intangible spirit while I put my faith in my humanity. I know I'm not perfect--at least, not yet--but I still feel humanity can come up with the answer--and hopefully do a whole hell of a lot better than 42. Remember, we need something that sounds good.
As I ponder this great world that I've created, I am bothered by the fact that I don't know if Jason knows I believe in him. Could you please drop him a line and let him know? Oh, and about that prayer request for your aunt's liver disease? Sorry, my answer is still no, but hey, at least I answered it! Just not the way you wanted. My bad,
And he was right. It was really channel 3, but I figured that out soon enough. 60 Minutes was running a story on Plan B.
Tom: Dude, you at home?
Me: Yeah, why?
Tom: Turn on CBS.
Me: What is that, channel 6?
Tom: Um, I dunno. I have satellite.
Me: What am I looking for?
Tom: Blogger fodder.
So, women's health comes down to the personal preference of pharmacists, doctors, and the like? What the fuckin' hell?!?!?! Are they going to raise their child by rapist? Are they going to raise your father's grandchild, and child, because the poor girl was raped by her dad or stepfather? Are they going to send money to the family who couldn't afford to have another child?
While most doctors do not consider that an abortion, anti-abortion-rights doctors do, such as David Hager, a gynecologist from Lexington, Ky., who won't prescribe Plan B for his own patients.
"One of the mechanisms of action can be to inhibit implantation, which means that it may act as an abortifacient," says Dr. Hager. He says abortifacient means it causes an abortion and that this medication may act to inhibit implantation.
In 2002, Dr. Hager got a call from the Bush White House asking him to serve on the FDA advisory committee charged with reviewing Plan B's over-the-counter application along with two other anti-abortion-rights physicians. But when Hager argued against Plan B at committee meetings, he didn't talk about abortion.
"I was concerned about 10, 11, 12-year-old girls buying this product," says Hager.
He raised moral questions. "I'm not in favor of promotion of a product that would increase sexual activity among teenagers," he says.
Hager speculated about an increase in sexually-transmitted diseases. "I'm saying that it is possible that with the use of Plan B the individual may put herself at greater risk," he says.
But the advisory panel reviewed 40 studies that refuted his objections and showed that Plan B does not lead to more cases of sexually transmitted disease, or more risky sexual behavior.
Even Dr. Hager admits Plan B is totally safe. The FDA says there have been no deaths, no heart attacks, no strokes and no evidence of misuse or abuse.
But he says one of his major concerns is that young women wouldn't go to their doctors if such a drug were readily available.
"If we approve this for over-the-counter sale, then what is that going to do as far as what I call access to medical care for younger adolescent women?" Hager asks.
Wood disputes that view. "Is this cutting the doctor out? Would it cut out their relationship?" she asks. "Well, in fact, I think there's strong argument that the physicians themselves want this product to be over the counter."
Wood says the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Association have all endorsed making this product available over the counter. That includes pediatrics, meaning younger girls.
If Plan B is sold over the counter anyone--any age--could buy it easily in a drugstore, like cough syrup or bubble bath. A big part of this issue is whether pharmacies will stock it. What if they refuse to carry Plan B?
In a survey of drugstores in Kentucky, Dr. Hager's home state, the American Civil Liberties Union found that most pharmacies didn't carry Plan B; 83 of them said they would even refuse to order it for women with prescriptions. These include Wal-Mart, which has a nationwide policy against dispensing Plan B.
The American Civil Liberties Union got a prescription for a woman named Fran, and sent her to five pharmacies undercover. 60 Minutes went along with a hidden camera to see what would happen.
Only one pharmacy, Kmart, had Plan B in stock; another drug store offered to order it, but the pharmacist told Fran it would take several days before they could possibly get it.
Remember, it has to be taken within 72 hours.
At another store, Fran was turned down by a pharmacist who explained that she believes it's an abortion pill. "The morning after pill is after you have that fertilized egg, and that is a baby. You are not allowing it to implant. So it is considered abortive," the pharmacist said.
The next day, Fran and 60 Minutes went back to that pharmacy together and found the same pharmacist.
"Anyone can walk in off the street and we can refuse to fill a prescription," the pharmacists said. Asked whether a prescription could be refused on religious grounds, the pharmacists said, "On any grounds. Personal preference. Any reason, we can refuse to fill a prescription."
But the Kentucky state pharmacy board told 60 Minutes that pharmacists must have a professional medical reason, not simply a personal preference, to turn away a prescription for Plan B or anything else.
The pharmacy did offer birth control but the pharmacist did not consider Plan B birth control.
Now, let's examine this a little more closely, shall we? The Dancing Monkey philosophy is this: Teach Abstinence.
The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993.
It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the "Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy," dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The shocking parts are the words "closet Republican." Geez, you think you know a guy, am I right? :D So anywho, I digest this briefly, consider my brother, and realize that this isn't because of something they slip into the sacred marriage vows at the civil courthouse:
Scott is unabashedly Republican, while I'm a closet Republican. I'm also a closet Christian--what I like to refer to as Xian for reasons I can explain if the reader so desires.
So he's republican. I'm actually okay with that. Some of the things that this administration sorely lacks are good republican values, such as small federal government and a balanced budget... But whatever. I continue reading as he breaks down his beliefs and labels, all very interesting and well said. I eventually get to his "direct address" of my posts, and one of the things he states is:
Judge: Sign here, and here, oh, and initial here...
Groom: Wait, what's that say?
Judge: Oh, that's nothing, it just changes your voter status...
Bride: Oh, like my last name for voting purposes?
Judge: Er, something like that. Man and wife, on your way, now. Congratulations...
In walks secretary.
Secretary: Got them to become Republicans?
Judge: They joined a sacred institution that evil gays and lesbians want to defile, they signed the papers, they took the vows to become Republican! Praise Jesus!
I would like to take the opportunity here to state, up front, in case I've mislead anyone, that I did not have a bad childhood. Never even crossed my mind, in fact. Even though there were five of us, we never wanted for anything (although we thought we did!). We had more toys, more square footage, more things to do and places to go than most other kids I knew growing up. Were my parents perfect? No, but they tried, and they tried damn hard! I can't even imagine how one child would screw up my lifestyle as it presently is, let alone five born within six years of each other! But they had a love and a desire for us to grow up healthy (despite my mothers' almost killing me twice as a child... funny story, for a later post!), happy, and god-fearing. Do I think there are things they could have done differently? Who doesn't? A childs number one job through their twenties is to let their parents know how they screwed up, and make sure they know we won't make those same mistakes... and in our thirties, when we become parents, if we do hold to our promise to not make the same mistakes, fresh ones are created, and we have to wait until our kids are in their twenties before we find out what those mistakes were... Circle of life and all that.
The fact that you and I [...] were born into a cultish family. [...] Two people with five kids doing the best they can with what they've been given, raised in a strict and poor environment reacting against the destruction and disillusionment of World War II, the Cold War, and all the fear and loss and abandonment issues that go along with all that: not a cult. Not even cultish environment. Not ideal? Perhaps. But what is an ideal environment? Ours was certainly better than most. If you don't believe me, go to Mexico, China, India, North Korea, much of Eastern Europe, South America, and Africa. This country is far, far from perfect, but it still is a great place to grow up and live in, considering the alternatives. And our parents, while far from ideal, are still great, great parents, considering the alternatives. Hell, you don't even have to go far to see that. Come with me to Reading for just one day and read the journals of my kids or get into a conversation with them about their home lives. I guarantee you your heart will cry out to them.
I do have anger. I will admit it. "Hi. My name is Jason, and I have anger." (Politely waiting while everyone shouts back, "Hi, Jason!") I do believe "cult-ish" is a very apt phrase for describing the right-wing church of today. They have dogma, and they have faith, but they have no sense of self-analyzation or self-awareness that allows them to break free from a poisonous atmosphere. My parents are victims of this mentality, and while it may not fit Webster's definition of the word, it's the best I can come up with at this point. But I'll digress.
And while I'm not saying you have beefs with Mom and Dad, reading between the lines in many of your posts, and especially when you throw around words like "cultish" when describing our family, I sense that there are real feelings of anger. Perhaps this anger is justified, and I'm sure writing about it all is extremely therapeutic, like my writing was (and is even now) during my separation from Ann, but I just want to hopefully point out that Mom and Dad were doing the best they could with what they had, reacting and acting with and against a system of beliefs that has been giving security to untold millions for thousands of years--even before JC hit the planet. They haven't been given our discerning and inquisitive faculties, so we need to forgive them when they bust out the "Jesus in the heart" thing.
I don't doubt it! If anyone here thinks life is easy, please raise your hand.... (perusing the sea of millions of readers stopping by...) Okay then. I hold no issue with life being hard, or that life gets so crazy busy that we can't take the time to stop and smell a rose, let alone crack open a book for the sake of learning... But should that e an excuse to not learn? It is certainly a reason, but as an excuse it falls flat on its face. Not that Tom is guilty of doing this... I'm amazed at how much Tom cranks through even with wife, kids, and school. Ann as well! Tom has certainly found a spouse worthy of him!
It was hard for me to learn that Dad's not exactly the smartest guy in the world. Like most boys, I remember viewing Dad as the be-all and end-all of knowledge. But when I started learning that things he told me were wrong, or when he would just flat-out tell me that he didn't know certain things--and even worse, that he didn't even think about certain things!--that blew my mind. I've come to learn that Dad's a simple guy, yet very wise and certainly very loving--even if he doesn't show it. He's also a deep dude that suppresses a lot because he doesn't have either the cognitive abilities or the desire or the stamina to get to the bottom of certain things. He questions some, but when it gets too hairy, he relies on others to do his thinking for him, and those whom he chooses to rely on are run-of-the-mill preachers and conservative thinkers, not intellectuals or academics. The problem is he's not much different than most people. People like cookie-cutter answers that they can rely on for security. They like these because life is too tough to think about. When you have to support your kids and maintain a home and property and please squabbling family members and financially help others and be a leader in the community and be a loving husband and father and wear all these hats--it's tough.
I did state that, but I do believe I also stated that "revelation," as it were, does not need a divine source. It simply needs a mind that puts 2 and 2 together to come to 4. Do we always like that 4? No, and most people will eventually follow the 4 to another 4 and arrive at 8, while a lot of people are still discussing the merits and fallacies of the original 4. The bible can be boiled down to two points Jesus supposedly made back in the day: Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Stop, think, and look at yourself. Look at people. As you have rightly and recently stated, and as I myself have recently learned from one of my greatest teachers out in California, all of our knowledge has come from one person telling another person. Even if you stick revelation from an outside source into the mix (as I would do because I do believe in God who speaks in revelations, but I certainly am open to refutations on this premise as I journey at all times seeking unadulterated truth), revelation only comes in spurts, and that revelation only comes to certain individuals. So this revelation needs to be disseminated somehow, and the only way is person to person. So don't be angry at God or Jesus, be angry at people, be angry at yourself, and then start investigating once the purging has ended. Too many people think they are seeking, when really they are just stoking the fires of their own malice deep inside of them.