socks

Once had a guy defending on this topic and he said "Well, if we had to wait for someone to be perfect we'd never get anything done dernit!" Bingo. Sermon over. Pass the hat Padre, all we need now is beer money. People don't want to leave well enough alone, be happy with what they've got and be willing to earn what they don't have and move the Living Word of Christ on their own get up and go, people like VPW (and he's not alone in this respect by any means) choose to build a profit earning Jesus-Inc. business to provide the engine for their "ministry", basically financing their own dream machines and getting a livelihood to boot. But it turns into a gnarly birds nest of greed and creed - look at the Weirwille heritage - not a one of them has a right to their family farm, property or anything on it. It's "God's" now - all for the good of the "ministry" that continues to provide museum space for his legacy. Which is great because WE ALL KNOW HOW MUCH GOD REALLY NEEDS FARMLAND IN OHIO. Sad, tragic, weird, bizarre. The most important things have already been done (by God in Christ) - it's in man's self-made maniacal machinations to build a better god-trap that he's always catching his tail. Period.

Sure, got lots of hot air like that. One thing that I'd add too - in regards to Kris's comments about VPW's mindset............ I dunno 'bout that, if that's true. She may have felt he really thought it was okay... And if he did that makes him hmmmmmmmmmm....pretty much disqualified from the teacher's chair or any role of responsibility in the bawdee of Kee-riste. You can't have somebody doing that to God's people - But I kinda think he talked himself into it. I really don't believe, and this is just IMO, that he was really clean in his mind about it. I don't think he could be- He had a wife and children, family and close intimate work associates like Ermal O, and others. He would have had to have complete agreement and acceptance from his closest family and friends on this in order to not have the guilt and condemnation from the constantly embedded in his life. Obviously he didn't because it was kept "under the covers" (little pervy humor there, sorry) He kept it secret - or so he thought, I guess if you stumbled in on him by accident one day and went YIIIIKES! and had to discuss it with him later, it might not be so secret. Or if others talked about it amongst themselves to leverage position and stature in the company, that kind of thing. But he kept it secret and I don't believe from what I know and have read that - All of his family member and closest associates all knew what he was doing, what he thought about it and that they were not all in 100% support and agreement with him and for him. Different levels of knowledge, some none, some all. Soooooo....yeah. Or no. I don't think he was pure hearted about it if I can use that word in this context. Not at all, otherwise he would have been open about it. Instead of lying. He reduced the lying later in life by not handling topics like marriage fidelity and adultery up close and personal and b s'd about their "real" meaning. Sorta like, "don't ask cauze I ain't telling but if i do I got real yarn for you". HE KNEW he couldn't face those topics publicly, so he didn't. Thus IMO - sure he knew he was wrong, that's why he steered clear of the topic as much as possible. Just sayin'.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hSgPyTvbIEA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y6FFFCQr4wc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is really several different kinds of discussions and one of them IS biblical and doctrinal. "Adultery" in the bible is fairly simple and straightforward - having a commitment made to one spouse that commits a primary relationship to that one spouse and having the primary relationship with another who is not your spouse. Sex is included in the primary relationship definition. Jesus clarified this in Matthew 5: 27 and 28. Read it. It handles the O.T. commandments of "coveting" a "neighbor's wife" and committing adultery. He states clearly - to lust after another woman "already" commits adultery in the heart. It involves wanting something that's forbidden, that's off limits. What's off limits? The coveting that leads to adultery. Jesus is speaking to a specific context here. VPW was married, by all standards, legal, biblical, cultural. His side of this discourse isn't up for debate. Whether a woman was single or married, he was married. To produce a situation where the physical desire for him or another towards him was the outcome is wrong, per Jesus. It doesn't allow for a situation where the married man is free to have sexual relations with an unmarried woman. That's handled by the definition of "fornication". The N.T. epistles bring that up from time to time. The basic biblical scenario that's painted in the N.T. is for men and women "not to burn" with desire - people are people, human. Desire is part of the human makeup. Marriage is the correct context for sex. Men who choose to be leaders in the church are instructed to be the "husbands of one wife". Have a relationship with one woman and maintain that one. Or just apply the old saying - don't s--t where you eat....don't screw where you work. Any idiot figures that out whether they aspire to a higher ideal or not. The O.T. records of people like David who had multiple "wives" don't mean they were free to have sex with as many women as they wanted - just "marry" them and have at it. I'm surprised that's even still up for discussion. A little history is needed but I'm not going to teach it here. If anyone wants to be ignorant so be it but I promise you you're going to look pretty dammed stupid trying to pawn that off on anyone who's bothered to read more than what the Way published on that topic. Another good point to remember in this topic is that within what we read in the Epistles is a chronology of sorts - there's (at minimum) 4 generations in the N. T. Bible we read today - Jesus and His followers are the 1st - John, Peter, Mary, all of them. The 2nd includes Paul, Luke, Mark and others we read about in Acts, etc. The 3rd would be those that grew out of Jerusalem, and then on from there are those that are represented by the people the epistles are written to. We can assume that many if not most of these people had never seen or heard Jesus themselves and most may have never heard of Him at all, certainly not in the way they were hearing it all then (even counting those in Jerusalem that heard Peter on Pentecost - we don't know exactly what that produced across the geography of the middle East). So they were much like us in that respect, different in time and space but similar in this regard. It's obvious but it makes a difference to me to realize that these "letters" were already addressing a group removed from the actual "time of Christ" by 3, 4, 5 generations. This is an important context to remember I think because they really give a view into what the earliest churches were like, what they were going through, the challenges they encountered. We can see this in Corinth, for instance and what's written to them, "Corinthians" 1 and 2 are very granular in the issues they address in parts. Point being that the behavior and conduct of the people was being addressed, how they treated each other and carried out their business now that they were getting some miles under them, what worked, what didn't work. And how their leaders - the elders amongst them who helped in their oversight and well being - were to act. It's clear, there's no fudge room IMO. The fact that we may try to fudge illustrates that we choose to ignore what the bible clearly says and instructs and instead try to get an acquittal based on a loop hole in an interpretation of some past example that we present in the hopes that our audience doesn't really know the facts - the actual truth of the facts - and can be bamboozled. The fact that VPW really thought he was okay in this category indicates how far afield he was. Like a guy who says "I thought it was okay to go through that red light because I didn't see anyone coming from the other way - so it was okay". The light's red. No one's coming. You stop till it's green. Period. "But there was an emergency! I had to go!" Fine, you still broke the law. Here's a ticket. Don't let it happen again under normal circumstances. Men have desires? Emergencies? Don't get me started on the balls of yarn VPW rolled about being "disciplined", about having one's mind "under control", about being "like steel" when it came to The Word, The Word - nothing but the Word!!" C'mon....anyone who lived through these years and abided by the constraints and is better off for it today knows - he was full of it. Canned, spammed and clammed - full of it thinking all this was "okay". Okay as long as no one took his butt out to the ol' "Back 40" and danced with a 2 X 4.

Sweet.....<br><br> Monday Morning, back on the job...<br><br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rF_Ul9o3PvE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm reminded for some reason that - snooze alert! Right outta the gate God establishes a level of severity - eat of all the trees but not this one - do that and it's all over. I would contend that the "tree" was choice - not that choice is wrong, the capacity to choose is inherent in man from the start and is God given. Rather that using that faculty to choose "evil" will bring about destruction. Choose correctly, don't exercise the capacity to choose wrongly. What their choices were is unclear but it's clear that it was important that they have the ability to think for themselves and that it's important to God that man choose right, do right and not "know" evil by choosing it. Oversimplified? Not if the Genesis record is taken literally - if man chooses evil, wrong, he goes against his instructions. Told that he "won't die" but rather will become like God Himself, he takes that route. Aware that he's done wrong he tries to conceal it. When we do wrong we try to conceal it, ourselves, we try to hide it. "Lock box". Nothing is hidden that can not be known, that will not be known if only to God. With God the secrets of the heart are open, clear. We don't know all and contrary to some interpretations of the bible I don't believe that we will know all about everyone and everything at some point in the future. But the clarity that God sees with can be shared now in part. VPW hid much of his life from others, made certain things known to only a select few. He offered levels of spirituality, of maturity and in so doing offered levels of wrong, of lack of maturity yet all the while insisting that there was no such reality "spiritually". Insisted that to be true and "salted" secrets had to be kept. He wasn't hiding anything from anyone because as we learn in life when it's held up to the light, the shadows that are cast reveal the pockets, the holes, the barricades we put up. We don't make the rules, the rewards or the punishment, none of this is our idea or self-creation. Looked at from the ground level we see what we see. It isn't till we look with "new eyes" and see what isn't there that we will see the variances and that requires a set of standards with which to see them, free of judgment that requires us to decide right or wrong but informed by the standards of God who sets those standards. VPW took exception to the idea that one sin required a greater retribution than another - that Christ's sacrifice wasn't complete or whole. On that I would agree, if redemption isn't complete it's not redemption, it's a deal under negotiation. That's all done. However the fulfillment of that - "seated in the heavenlies" - isn't completed yet. To accept Christ's finished work requires a response to sin - "repentance". That's a plain fact of scripture. If we jump start our redemption to create a mind set that we're already forgiven we bypass repentance and I would also contend that the bible teaches that as a continuous process throughout our lives - the very lives we continue to live after accepting Christ. Life is more than the time that measures it. We are repentant for the choices we make that are wrong, for the entire life we live, every day and year of it - that required the redemption to begin with and in so doing "follow Christ", staying close to the Redeemer. I'm not the standard. I'll get what's coming to me in the end. We all will and if that's only x odd years and dust, so be it. If there's more and I believe there is I trust that the bad will be peeled away and what's left will be what little I have to bring to the party, clothed with a New Life. I agree with the New Testament writer who put down that in me, there is nothing good, but if the seed of righteousness can grow within I may end up better going out than coming in. But for my part, we're all a wad of carbon with a little spit mixed in. Some of us do look better than others but that won't last long from what I've seen.

"dead in trespasses and sins to seated in the heavenlies" The Word he taught isn't negated by his actions, his like everyone else's are what they are be they good or bad. It's that Word that needs to be understood clearly. VPW missed the boat on some very important stuff. In order to get to a fully forgiven status through a redemption accomplished by Christ's sacrifice he made all sin - both the condition of man separated from God AND the things that condition produces - the same. "Sin" is sin is sin is sin, to him they were all the same, no better or worse, no gradients, no one better or worse than another in "God's eyes". Besides being just plain wrong that creates a sonic disconnect so loud it drowns out all biblical logic and reason to the point it turns Christians who hold to it into belly-button staring addicts of feel good grace. After a few 1,000 hits of the stuff they blur off into a glassy brained state of "whatever", losing their grounding to the moral and ethical realities of that "heavenly seat" they have. It's all one big wash of golden na-na land. Yet - as is obvious in many ex-Wayfers - they're the first to get the most adamant and ignited over perceived slights to their own right to the pearly gates of their PFAL given palace of What'sRightInThisGodForsakenWorld. Knock the dust of that cap and hit the book and read it for real, john. Yeah, that's a little insulting but only because I think you know in your Real Brain that much of what you write here is conflicted. I don't have a problem with most of what VPW taught and I'm of the mind that his propensity for being a prideful bag of hot air much of the time didn't hold him down as much as it would have a lot of people. But the sand in the machinery of life is less fear and more the bull-s--t we feed ourselves if make our own present more palatable by waiting for that Big Ol' Heavenly Seat in the Sky that's coming to us. Oh, this world is not my home, I'm just a passin' through.....but y'know, if we take care of the one that's coming like the one we've got now....

It's called 'Hard candy'(2006). aw, c'mon johnube 1. It's a movie. 2. It's not unclear? ......... at the end he confesses that he only "watched" the murder but didn't "do" it (which kind of redefines what it means to "do" something I guess). 3. It's a movie. 4. It's not a movie about "cleaning up the community", it's a movie about personal revenge over the death of a friend. 5. Did I say - it's a movie". No one's comparing that to VPW or any of this topic's points. I'm confused why you'd connect the two. Actually though your comments do remind me in an abstract way of VPW's personal version of "grace" when it was convenient for himself and his allies and perhaps the guy in the movie could be compared to Geer. 'Member, VPW's version of "saved by grace" meant that: He didn't actually "do" anything wrong when he did something wrong.......... There's no wrong in the Land of Forever Forgiven! He applied this selectively though - he himself being the imperfect person he was, chose to punish some but not others, for any range of trespasses, from small to large. He knew something was 'wrong' enough to take action against it but couldn't bring himself to apply that evenly and fairly. Fall asleep during one of his teachings - on a bad night, you get kicked out of the meeting, the Corps, the property Screw another person's wife - aww c'mon haw-ney....yoi're not still mad about that are you?

Yeah, she may be a blind bull in a china shop but she must realize that The Way dodged a HUGE bullet after the lawsuits, the biggie, the Allen case. Dodged may not be the right word - they were able to recover and continue and while it hasn't been the same since they haven't been shut down. She knows the old guard is still out there, all those who have left from the "old days". The Way Inc. could never hold up under any kind of open, public and consistent inquiry. I'm sure she knows the limits of her own and others capacity. So, yeah - burn candles and pretend light bulbs aren't what everyone else is using. Having lived there for several years myself I can't IMAGINE what it must be like there and don't like to for very long. Just can't imagine how those people endure and survive in that kind of environment. They must be tripping over the ghosts of the past. Or maybe having tea and toast with them....oh, how those tables must be sticky with filth after all these years.....

Oh yeah. Classic!

On the bridge. <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wu3vkHwxEaE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"...there are people who are saying the Catholic Church should be shut down. But this particular website isn't centered around the Catholic church, its centered around TWI." True. The internet has provided many, many outlets and portals for R C's to open up publicly about their religion and their own experience and faith that would be difficult if not impossible in person-one-to-one with others. I believe the RC church will "never" change from the inside, from the Vatican. It may grind to a halt in some distant future but it will be the same organization it is today, more or less. Likewise with the Way - it's a much different group and organization than it was 40 years ago but it appears it has the same underlying business case, so while the names may change, polices be reworded, lawsuits get settled out of court - not much at the core system level is probably going to change much. However - RC or TWI - they should be required to be in compliance with the laws of the lands they function in and be acceptable to the societies they serve. Compliance is a must, acceptance is a moving target, public opinion will shift but it's is a factor. I wouldn't shut the RC's down, point blank but I am a proponent of a moratorium on their church business activity in the U.S, with the exception of religious services and educational activities, while the Federal Government re investigates the church's practices and activities. If the Fed's can investigate baseball players and their use of *gasp!* performance enhancing drugs and thus tearing at the fabric of the American Way of Life, they should be able to step in and start some formal actions against a group that collects tax-free money and uses it in part to finance what appears to be a well organized and implemented network for sexual abuse. There are obviously some bad RC Apples in their leadership structure - root 'em out and let's help that church become a better safer place for it's members. Shoot - Vatican money could pay for it, just divert all that $ from gifts and donations and taxes not paid and put it towards improvements. Just makes sense, IMO. If they won't do it and if they won't provide public documentation and regular audits to demonstrate they're fixing the problem and not hiding sex offenders and criminals - shut 'em down. The Vatican's the sovereign territory of the Holy See, it's a monarchy. Declare war. We do it over all sorts of things all over the globe - if their Pope-King continues to flip us and everyone else off - hey. Can you say "Saddam Hussein?".................how about "Khada-aaafy?". Sound crazy? If it were my children suffering the effects of that perverted system it would sound pretty reasonable. Shut the m-fkers down. Now. In TWI's case it's easy to see they're staying below the radar these days, waaaaay low.The same goes for them IMO. They've settled and kept the lawsuits on the down low and - it would appear - recurrences are either down or non-existent. They may be weird, jerks and a waste of time but if they keep within the laws of the land, comply with all local, state and federal regulations and laws that apply to them and don't p-o their local community too much, they have a right to exist. So do the R C's. In either case criminal activity shouldn't be tolerated. Of course.

The outrage over the RC's? Where does one start? Remember - after the current Pope took orifice, he was soon met with the media wanting to know how he stood on all of the cases that were brewing, notably in the U.S. I distinctly recall his obfuscation and dodging on the topic, noting that the bulk of the inquiries were coming from the American media regarding American situations, and that he saw it as an American problem, not a global issue. He knew at that time of some of the situations that had been handled over many years due to his Vatican role - he just lied through his teeth. Point blank, bald faced shameless diversion away from the issue and rather than take action on it he indicated that it was a localized problem that needed to be handled case by case, not a world wide problem - which is what the world now knows it was and likely still is, as many other countries have stepped up and had to deal with it when it finally boiled over - which it was always destined to do, it was just a matter of time. So the Popester - just like those guilty clergy scum - is a criminal in my opinion and should be testifying and providing depositions as to what he knew, when he knew it, what he did and didn't do and say and what his knowledge has been. Same goes for the rest of that herd of swine. They could demote all of the do-gooding priests, nuns, biships, cardinals - the whole bunch - to rank and file citizen tomorrow and those who do good would continue to do so. Take away their titles and let them go back to work the same as any one else who chooses to dedicate their lives to an ideal and their beliefs. Shouldn't change a thing, at all, if they're for real. What VPW did is heinous. They're all in the same boat as far as I'm concerned and I by no means discount his entire life and career anymore than I discount the rest of Roman Catholicism - but that's a nasty packed boat he's in, dead or alive, and they can take it 20 miles offshore and pull the plug on it as far as I'm concerned. I don't give a rats asz how much Bible he taught.

ok. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

No offense intended either here, TZ "While presenting the Walking in God's Power advanced class material on "The Two Kingdoms" he became very seriously ill and has been hospitalized. He is being cared for at Maine Medical Center in Portland, Maine. He asks that that there not be any flowers sent as there are allergy issues." Can't say for sure but maybe God was trying to tell him something. Like Stop. Doing that. Now that he has, recovery can start. (using the figure of Speech of Permission there, of course because God would never bop someone over the head to get their attention, of course. Not.) Between the illness and the allergies, where's the Walking in God's Power? Achoo.

Everyone who thinks it's important to walk on water shouldn't baby step into doing it. That's whupped. Who wants to walk on a puddle? Get a boat, go out on any large lake, or the ocean, get a mile or so from shore and - well, just get out of the boat and do it. No life vest, no life saver, no rope if you sink, don't make plans or allowances for getting back in the boat "if" you don't walk on water - see, that's unbelief, fear. Doing those things indicates you aren't trusting God and might as well be working for the Devil. Just do it. Then report back after you do and let everyone else know how it worked out!

Yep excardosia, quoting from another here somewhere. It fits, like a bug in a rug. As does this: Stop consenting - Voila! - their power vanishes. Special? Darn tootin'. And the special for the day is No Consentio with a side of Don't Do Dat. I simply don't, just don't, no pea picking don't. There may be time involved, effects, things that need to be done. You just have to proceed, one foot forward, one step at a time, two up and one back, take a breather, two more - whatever the progress, you can make progress. I heard a guy say something once, and it stuck - it was John Bon Jovi of all people, talking about his success. He said "when you want something bad enough it's not hard to get". I'm not telling anyone else they gotta want it, they gotta do this or don't do that or do anything at all. But I know me and I can blither and deliberate forever on things but when there's something that I want, something I need to do and I want it bad enough I may crawl through muddy stumps to get it but I don't care. If I don't really want it I'll stop at the first sign of a blister but something important to me, blisters are my friends. I think most people are like that. We all have scars and all the stories aren't fun to tell how we got them. Everyone has a scar they hide, everyone has a place inside that's got a story better left untold. Life goes on. You said it once - I'll take what I get in this life and take what's coming to me in the next. I'll do the best I can with what I've got. It's not all up to me, wish it was and maybe it's better it's not, but it's not. In between I hope to "get it right". The clock is ticking.

I have had an an unbearable desire to respond to this thread's question with: "Yo momma". Don't ask me why, it's not a reflection on the topic or anythings else. Sorry, it was like an itch I had to scratch. I think this tells it like it is for me: "I simply don't allow my past to be a conduit of the present."

Nice post, Kit. I can't quite put into words what the Bible has done for me, which accounts for the endless string of 'em I come up with I guess. I agree, I encourage all to crack the Book. Read it, give it thought and give it time. I've never really had a period where I haven't to be honest, since my own new birth in Christ. I've found it important to have a relationship with the Bible and learn from it, let it inform, and through it provide enlightenment and wisdom. I think knowledge and understanding are two different things in a sense - knowledge itself doesn't lead to understanding in and of itself. I could point to times and periods where my own understanding and "aha!" moments have come and are simply part of the process of continuous effort - I do that in others areas of life too. Others seem born of themselves, come "out of nowhere" and are satisfying in ways that are new. The "spirit" speaks, spreads, reveals, renders, crafts, lives and makes known. Prayer, study, meditation, thought - these are the basic things for me. One doesn't exclude the other, they all work together towards a good end. That writer addresses those nicely I think.

Winter has arrived.... <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u8hLc_nqx8g?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you don't go, how can you Know? Or how will you grow? And if not you then who? If not now, then when? If not this then what? Why sit ye here till ye die? Anyway, it's very difficult to understand a home "twig" without being there, with people, etc. Hearing about it won't duplicate the actual experience. There's probably going to be some expectation around you being there though so the experience will be impacted by your presence so it's not like being a fly on the wall, you become part of what's going on. But it's not a big deal, it's not like zombies will come out of the sofa and eat your brains. You're adults right? So you go, they'll be nice to you, I'd expect. No biggie. Not sure what city you live in, locations and local leaders have a big impact on how things are done, from what I've heard lately (and that's not a lot) But basically they're pretty similar - songs, prayer, manifestations, some more prayer, an offering, a teaching or tape, some more prayers maybe some more songs. It's pretty basic stuff, not always in that order but pret' near close I'm sure.

For all those cozy, rainy nights to come, some Boz....<br> oh man, where's my sunshine? Sunshine was my friend. <br> She was good to me<br> Right up to the end. <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/so_4S9gZ20k?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KDlqpDkwd6I?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So, if I am taught something by a minister, and taught something else(separately) by an older sibling, then, without any "teacher" personally present, I can compare what I was taught by each one (minister and older sibling) and reach my own conclusions. And this is part of "what I was taught" :blink: These aren't the only kinds of decisions we make, choosing between one thing or another or a set of options. We find ourselves in the position of simply having one choice, one thing, that we know - all the time. We can accept that and leave it at that or decide to look for other options to that. There are times when the result wasn't known before that. That is literally going beyond, further, a step more, beyond what we were taught. We also learn things for the "first time" through our own effort - all the time. It may be something known already but for us, it's the first time. VPW actually taught this about the definition of an "apostle" when he defined it as "one who sheds 'new 'light' - it may have already been revealed prior but it's new to that generation"............ The "going beyond what you're taught" part is kind of a vicious circle, IMO. A chicken or the egg thing. To me the importance is to NOT take everyone else's word for everything and end up choosing between two things being given to me automatically because I often end up choosing between the lesser of two evils, whether I know it or not. And we know where that leads.

Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom. If the guy had done that he either would have been blessed enough to absorb the loss of his goods and/or he would have gotten more earthly riches back. Not Jesus' problem the guy made the wrong choice. Hmmmm.....actually, Jesus didn't say anything about that johniam. Nothing about being "blessed" enough to absorb loss of his stuff or that he woudl have gotten "more".............right after the he spoke to the difficulty that a person of wealth has to "enter the kingdom of God"....................when you or I say things like that we are doing exactly what Jesus said NOT to do and what would be a PROBLEM for people - that is attaching earthly wealth and goods to God's kingdom. There was no quarantee of anything to that guy in the record as far as his wealth went - that's what he was to give away.......capiche? I was talking to someone about this once and they were apparently brain dead from having listened too many times to VPW saying "Dahts right, kids!" because they immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that there was something wrong with money or having stuff or that God didn't want to "bless" people with "abundance". Which isn't what I'm saying and has nothing to do with this.......as geisha has noted, the issues are different.

"Always wanting to try to prove that the founders where anti God and religion." Jefferson? He was brought up in the Anglican church. He was definitely anti-religion in his adult years and didn't have much respect for the Christian "religion" that believed in Jesus Christ as son of God and having a unique spiritual role as "messiah", didn't accept the doctrine of redemption by Jesus Christ, etc. etc. etc. He spoke out against the "Trinity" specifically (that fact was often used by VPW and The Way) but not to support their belief that Jesus was the " son of God and not God". Jefferson just didn't buy into any of that. Anti - God? No, not by a long shot. He certainly wrote and spoke as if he believed in a God, a creator. He stated in his writings that he attempted to draw moral and ethical lessons from the bible, and the teachings of Jesus without most of the spiritual baggage. He even re wrote his own version, stripping out what he considered parts that were added. Oddly - I've read Christian writers note the fact that he produced his own version of the Bible as proof he was really a Christian, bible believin' man. Apparently they've never read it. I highly recommend it, for historical purposes. It's an interesting effort. I really respect Jefferson, his thoughts and ideas and see him as one of the true lights of our country's foundation. Obviously most others do too - But Jefferson gets adopted by many Christians today as if he would have supported the efforts of churches to take control of our government- as if that's what he was really proposing because he was a "Christian" by their standards - which he clearly wasn't, just the opposite in fact. I've studied Jefferson, his history and his writings, have read most of his stuff, letters, published stuff, etc. etc. I'm not an expert by any means but more of a student of his life and writings. Everyone wants to have him for their poster boy - even opposing sides! I suspect he might have liked that......