Why (again)

This will bother many Christians; but I cannot help that. I believe that America was protected by GOD since before its inception. I am having a hard time with all the ignoring of America’s trying to disprove the Christianity of America. I think it is time we said something about what we believe and stop ignoring our faith. HE said if we are ashamed of HIM now; HE will be ashamed of us on that day! I am not ashamed of HIM!

Today is THANKS GIVING DAY; what are you thankful for? I am thankful for the nation I live in. I am thankful that we can still do what Dr Martin Luther King did; I only wish he had lived to see how we are progressing toward his dream. We are not there yet, but we are on the way.

Others created my country. And when I realize the blood sweat and grief that went into creating this country; WOW! I believe this nation was created with the help of GOD. How else can it be! Our forefathers fought against one of the greatest and strongest nations in the known world; and WON! Then, again I believe it was the hand of GOD, when we fought a war against ourselves; brother against brother; son against father in what is called a CIVIL WAR, which IF the south had won; we would be have split into a bunch of city states, speaking a different language. Not capable of winning WW I or WW II. Think on that! We would not have been available to fight off the Germans or the Japanese when they attacked us. Both of these latter wars were against the Germans. The second one, they were allied with the Japanese and Italians. You can say what you want; HE was with us. We were unprepared. The secular people will have to agree, there were so many coincidences, and they could not have all been coincidences. Consider; General Patten asked his Chaplain to write a prayer for him as he was socked in with a pea soup fog and could not get the planes off the ground to fight. The Chaplain wrote; Gen Patten prayed; and the events moved in the battle to win those battles. Can we say that today? Will HE be willing to save us from what we are facing today? Are we not in a spiritual war? If we have another time when we need Spiritual help; will HE be with us? Well, I believe we need HIS help again.. I think HE left Scriptural Prophecy in such a way for U.S. to have a choice to do something. You see I do not see anything about America there; I see Russia (Magog), I see Israel (Israel), I see the East (China, with trouble on the horizon) I see the Mediterranean. Look in Daniel and Revelation, See? I think HE left something for U.S. to fight for as well. HE protected U.S. for hundreds of years; I just believe He will help; if we do what HE asks. Repent; pray; seek HIS face. Get involved by speaking out when we see the public teaching things that are lies; like “millions and millions of years ago“. We know the truth, and it will make you free I am grateful that I will hear HIM call, that is when you start to understand Christianity. To whom much is given, much is required; that is us! HE gave us much.

I believe HE has placed U.S. in THIS position to say I AM HERE FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS! I think HE has given U.S. this bastion of freedom to fight for so the persecuted can have somewhere to run to during the end.

Christians love to talk about how devout the founding fathers were.

Maybe they were. Time will tell.

God has indeed blessed this nation.

But we’re a rebellious nation, and we were from the beginning. The founding fathers, if they were Bible followers at all, wiped their feet on Romans 13.

We’re rebellious now. It’s in our dna.

It accuses us.

If a wicked King or civil government rules (by making laws or taking actions) such that they reject God and his Law Word, that supersedes the Biblical mandate to submit to civil government authority.

We are not to place wicked civil laws over God's law. This is what would, for example, give Christians living in the Stalinist USSR the right, and, in fact, the obligation to oppose such an evil and wicked ruler.

Obedience does not been blind obedience to sinful and wicked government.

The decision for armed resistence is then juxtaposed to simple disobedience. Under violent, statist regimes, disobedience (for example, a Nazi soldier refusing to participate in unlawful murders) results in punishment, often death, for those who disobey such illegitimate orders. Such disobedience is certainly Biblically mandated.

Armed resistence, where the remnant of Christians decreases as they are executed for disobedience, is inevitably suggested. The question of whether, and at what point, does the Bible command that it's time to remove, or, in America's case separate from, a tyrant, must then be answered.

Should we, seeing a government that passes laws and acts in clear and direct rejection of it's Biblical authority and mandate, wait, as we did in WWII, while it gathers strength and seizes absolute power, until mass violence is underway in full strength against it's citizens and neighboring nations ? By that time the U.S. entered WWII, both German and Japanese citizens had a basically impossible task in removing the wicked rulers. They were reliant on Providence to send a conquering army (the U.S.) in response to attacks and utterly defeat their nation in battle in order to remove the political chokehold of tyranny; the other nations they attacked relied on the same army as well as the U.S. arsenal and vital supplies of food, etc.

So in the case of colonial America, was the Revolution Scriptural, i.e., was the government of King George and the other European governments legitimate Scripturally ? That can be studied at great length, starting with the Declaration, but I look at a few simple points. America was claimed by the European powers as new territory; this was expansion beyond their borders. The only legitimacy in that would be derived from the Biblical doctrine of the dominion mandate. But since their own citizens were sent or allowed to go there (and were the ones rebelling), I don't see any Scriptural defense for then being able to govern them as second-class citizens. IMHO, this became a case of nations that had apostasized trampling on the descendants of their good citizens who went to populate newly claimed territory. This was territory that they simply did not have the wherewithal to govern but looked at only as a source of money to feed their corrupt governments.

Keep your essays... I will rely upon the Word of God:

The essay is good scholarship; it includes numerous Biblical citations, as well as citations of other works by serious, ordained theologians, who also cite Scripture profusely in supporting their exegesis.

I always have to go and get quotes and boil things down I notice; quite often. I strongly advise that the reader read about the Reformation. The Reformers were very astute in their questions. From those questions came an understanding of Scripture that hearkened back to the original doctrine of the Apostles; and undoubtedly this was because they were simply conducting an honest study of Scripture. It is utterly amazing to me how people imply that they are more knowledgable of the Bible than Luther, Zwingli, Tynedale, Wycliff, Calvin, Knox and all the other Reformed theologians - and yet they have not read, contemplated and understood their works. Not to mention all the theologians before them, Augustine, Aquinas, etc., going back to the time of the Apostles. We're fortunate because the Reformers did all the painstaking study of the prior theologians and compared them to Scripture, yet people don't even want to take the time to read the Reformers. But they will buy an end-times pop theology book and lap it up without questioning any of it.

If we listen only to modern theologians, we are dreadfully missing out on the Reformation theologians. I've worked as a programmer for 20 years; I deal in logic all day long and I've solved problems that teams of people couldn't solve, so I'm no novice in that area. I find the Reformers' logic like a breath of fresh air, very solid work.

The key to understanding Scripture is knowing that we can not look at a verse and disregard how it fits in with Christian doctrine that is based on the whole counsel of Scripture. This is what the Reformers did - they did all that analysis. I can't give you the "essence or core argument" in a few simple sentences - eschatology can not be summed up in a few simple sentences by pointing to a few Bible verses. Eschatology is only PART of Biblical doctrine. One has to understand numerous Biblical doctrines in order to properly interpret this or that verse.

The verses you cited reference the Day of the Lord, which has always been generally accepted doctrine - that's why it's part of the New Testament canon.

What has quite recently been added by men only less than 200 years ago - with NO conservative theologians going along with it - are various other theories about dispensations and end-times scenarios that do not agree with a full, honest reading of all Christian doctrine.

I know it's a lot to read (it's 3 whole paragraphs), but the Westminster Confession of Faith section 33 summarizes what was accepted by a whole bunch of very educated theologians (they weren't on TV, though); it's at the following link and has Scripture proofs links to click on.

www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

The guy on TV or the ranting faith healer/end times personality wearing the Rolex probably has not come up with something that all the great minds of Christian theology just somehow happened to miss in 2,000 years of study.

At the very least, IMHO, I would read up on what all those theologians past thought before I tossed them out in favor of my local prosperity preacher who's theology degree came from an ad in Rolling Stone. I found it absolutely essential to use a study guide that showed where a verse is referencing other verses. It's mind boggling - it's like everything references everything else; and I go and read the references, I don't take anyone's word for it. And I read the entire chapter usually, to understand the gist of what was being said in context.

The Bible is SO much more than eschatology. Americans today often think that is ALL the Bible is; it's such a shame.

I would recommend first reading the Westminster Confession section 33 and studying it's Bible references, then reading the essay that I first provided a link to, and certainly check each Bible verse he references. I will certainly try to look for answers if you have specific questions as you do that. If you check out the whole Westminster Confession on that website, it's a very good synopsis of Reformed Christian theology and that website provides those helpful Scripture links.

But you did not answer the question as to why the pre-trib rapture interpretation is heresy.

Because it is not consistent with Scripture. If I say the moon is made of green cheese and a certain Bible verse proves it, that would be heresy. If I had a list of 17 Bible verses, yes, you could go and painstakingly prove to me that each verse did not mean what I postulated. But the moment you found one verse that I was misinterpreting, you'd know I was incorrect - and since I would be spreading a false Gospel - I would be heretical.

For example, a refutation of a common argument for pretribulation rapture:

1 Thessalonians 5:9
One of the most popular arguments for the pretribulation rapture is based on 1 Thessalonians 5:9, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is argued that the great tribulation is an unprecedented time of God’s wrath falling upon the whole world. Since believers are specifically told that they are not appointed to wrath, it is only logical to conclude that the church will be removed from the earth before God’s wrath is poured out. This removal is the rapture of the saints. This argument for the rapture is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, it assumes that the wrath spoken of in verse 9 is the wrath poured out during the tribulation. The context of chapter 5 however makes it abundantly clear that the wrath spoken of in verse 5 is not the wrath of the tribulation but the wrath that occurs at the second coming of Christ—the day of the Lord (cf. 1 Th. 5:1-3)..."

The above is a quote from part of the essay, which goes on in more detail. As I read the entire essay and checked each Bible reference and it's full meaning in context and within the context of all Christian doctrine, every refutation in the essay made sense; I could only conclude that pretrib rapture was not Scripturally defensible.

I have other scriptures that reference timing before the tribulation with respect to the Holy Spirit removing Himself from earth. (because it is He who is holding back Satan’s full power and influence now)

IMHO, be careful to not look at verses with the assumption that there is a tribulation. Assuming it's true does not prove it and can make it difficult to see how it's not true. Just from a common sense point of view, verses used to "prove" pretrib rapture - already had another interpretation prior to 1830, so before reading about the pretrib rapture interpretation one should a) understand the pre-1830 interpretation, b) understand how that fits in with all other Biblical doctrine, c) now look objectively at why it should be reinterpreted the new way. It's very rare that anyone comes up with an insight that is new, very significant and actually true, because the Bible has been studied for 2,000 years.

It is commonly understood by Christians that God literally indwells us... that the Holy Spirit resides within us... and for Him to leave without us would go against His promise that He would never leave nor forsake us.

Agreed, even believers who die painful deaths are not abandoned by God.

God’s sacrifice made it possible for us to have a direct relationship with Him individually.

Direct relationship, yes. But our own interpretation of God's Word, no, only the true interpretation is true.

I am not knocking or discouraging the works of great theologians.

I simply like to boil things down and make them simple for everyone to understand. Not everyone has the time to read a library of books before they feel qualified to debate these issues.

We can simplify up until the point we oversimplify; after that we're no longer telling the truth. As far as how much is needed to know, that's why catechisms (yes, some Protestants still do this) and Confessions of faith were developed. This tells the person professing faith the essentials of what they believe, so they can know what they believe when the profess. Debating is not what the Bible commands us to do; teaching and learning, seeking and finding, yes. Debating is more of a political term. After all, it does not matter if I win or lose a debate on Scripture.

>>> Because it is not consistent with Scripture. If I say the moon is made of green cheese and a certain Bible verse proves it, that would be heresy.

here’s the definitions of heretic I found on wiki (they are all similar):

anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

Now... u say heresy is being inconsistent with scripture.

I guess that makes us all heretics including you, because i’m sure none of us has everything 100% right in our theology... Unless of course you care to adopt the more common definition of heretic which refers to a member of a particular faith or church who adheres to doctrines contrary to that faith or church he is part of.

Point being, a particular position/interpretation/doctrine on scripture cannot itself be heretical... only a person can be heretical... IF that person does not adhere to beliefs held by his professed denomination or religious organization. If Baptists believe in pre-tribulation rapture (which we do) then how am I a heretic in that regard?

I would recommend that you stop using that word so frivolously and incorrectly. Heretics are traditionally shunned people who are treated as rebellious as a method of forcing them to conform. To incorrectly refer to a doctrine as heresy simply doesn’t make sense when neither of us knows what church the other attends. It’s improper use plays upon the emotions of those who believe that doctrine and do not understand what is meant by your charge. (i.e. I believe that doctrine so I must be a heretic... which means i’m a bad person)

As for Thess 5:9, I’m not sure I would want to use that alone as proof of pre-trib rapture because it is not simple and clear to the point in question. It IS clear to me at least that as born again Christians, we are not appointed to wrath... which the tribulation period clearly is. I would say that Thess 5:9 SUPPORTS the position that as Believers, we escape judgment period. At least the form of judgment which brings God’s wrath... whether it be during the tribulation OR upon the second coming. (which is actually the 3rd coming)

Ok... so if there is no pre-tribulation rapture, then why won’t we know exactly when Jesus is returning since scripture is pretty specific about timelines from the moment the 7 year peace agreement is signed?

Jesus said that nobody knows the day or hour of his return, and yet Revelations is very specific about his return and the events which will unfold just before it. Just count 7 years from the time the peace treaty is signed and wallah... we have an accurate ETA.

Could it not be that more than 1 return is being referenced?

I’m curious as to just how open you are to the possibility that born again believers (Saints) will be removed during God’s time of wrath on earth. The scripture IS there to support that position... JUST as there is scripture which seems to discard it as you say. It all depends NOT on what someone wrote about it in 1880, or 2000 years ago... but rather What God’s purpose is, and what HE said about it.

Why is it that God would want us to suffer His wrath for which He is punishing the wicked? (Isaiah 26:19-21)

When Jesus returns in glory (DOL) to establish His kingdom on earth, who is said to be riding with him?

When is the marriage feast of the Lamb? Where is it held? and who is present? (Rev 19)

I was raised Methodist. It was a shock to my system to learn that the tiny amount of doctrine I had understood to be true was wrong. I pray that you'll continue to seek the truth. I am very logical by nature (and profession); I am extremely skeptical of everything, I take nothing for granted until I have a preponderance of evidence. I'm the last person anyone would expect to be a Christian. Try as I may - the Christian doctrine rediscovered that came out of the Reformation - I can't poke logical holes in it.

Now, to go nice and slow: Heresy

You must be able to find the Bible verses, I hope, that warn the believer to not believe false teachings. Paul's books are clear on that. False teachings were being taught in his day, so it's nothing new.

Here is a heretical doctrine: I tell you that I can give you a little medallion, and that medallion will be significant in your faith in God. Such a statement is contrary to fundamental Biblical doctrine, namely, the first table of the law which prohibits idolatry. The medallion is a thing made by man's hands.

It's critical that this is not something like a matter of taste. I make like blue shirts, you may like green shirts. The Bible does not offer guidance either way; it's a matter of personal preferance and we have the Christian freedom to wear either color.

But idolatry is a concept that is dealt with throughout the Bible, it is always portrayed as something God hates, it is never portrayed any other way.

Point being, a particular position/interpretation/doctrine on scripture cannot itself be heretical...

Now, if I were to try to convince you, by grabbing a verse here and there as proof, that the medallion is acceptable, I would be inducing you to commit a grievous sin. My false teaching would be heretical. Being someone who teaches heresy, I would then rightly be labled a heretic.

I think (I hope) we're on the same page so far.

By heretic, I am not saying "a person who's knowledge of the Bible is less than 100%, less than perfect". Of course, (need I point to the verses), no man is perfect; no man can have perfect understanding of Scripture. I think that's fairly obvious to any Christian with the most simple comprehension of Christian doctrine - that's a pretty basic idea.

Trouble is with most Protestant denominations today - they started going astray theologically quite dramatically in the 1700's and even more in the 1800's. Some, like the Church of England, never gave up on some of the .... original reasons why British Christians thought the RCC needed reforming. They kept many of the RCC traditions that the Reformers said were unscriptural - they just broke away and started their own Church ! While it is quite politically incorrect to call out an entire denomination for being unscriptural, it's not the person calling out, it's Scripture - the Word of God - that's doing the convicting. As Christ said, Matthew 10

"32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

only a person can be heretical... IF that person does not adhere to beliefs held by his professed denomination or religious organization.

The individual professing Christian who belongs to a denomination that has adopted false teachings has simply been lead astray. Of course, the individual did not set out to find a false Gospel. Presbyterians are a great example: the large mainstream denominations have adopted false doctrine (heresy). The poor members love their church, perhaps they have family history there, they like the youth group, the Christmas services, the music, church trips, charities, etc. Trouble is... they are following false doctrine. The Bible VERY clearly tells us - specifically - that the true believer may have to abandon no only a false Church, but also friends, jobs - even family in order to be a true believer.

It's so amazing, IMHO; we have completely forgotten where and why our Protestant Denominations, like Baptist and many others, separated from the Roman Catholic Church.

One of the original MAJOR points was Church (the visible Church, i.e., the organization) teaching, versus the Bible itself. The fundamental driver of the Reformation was Catholic clergy saying, in effect - why are we doing "doctrine x", it contradicts the Bible ? Let's get back to the Bible. But the Church said that Church teaching superseded the questioner's question, end of story.

Everything is ok if Church teaching matches the Bible. But what if we find something in the Bible... that appears to contradict what the Church is teaching ?

Back to our idolatry example. What if our Denomination, our pastor, starts handing out medallions with our favorite saint on them, and says we should carry them with us, they will remind us to pray. We ask him, is this not idolatry ? He says no, look at Numbers 21:8-9, it "proves" that God wanted us to make objects and look at them for relief from our problems:

"8 And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

Of course, he would be incorrectly interpreting these verses and preaching a heresy, though someone without general knowledge of Christian doctrine might be taken in by the lie. One easy test of any Church teaching (doctrine) is... does it contradict Biblical doctrine. Right away, we see a preponderance of references to God hating idolatry. Now, to define it. Well, we look at all those references, and a consistent pattern becomes very clear: according to the Bible, any object made my man's hands is not to be thought of as having any significance in our faith, nor is it to be reverenced in any way (that's just my laymen's uneducated definition whipped up in 3 seconds). Makes sense; after all, our worship is of God the Father and Jesus Christ, his only begotten son, our Lord and Savior. Is it not a terrible affront for us to be disobedient to God's revealed Word ?

Ok... so if there is no pre-tribulation rapture, then why won’t we know exactly when Jesus is returning since scripture is pretty specific about timelines from the moment the 7 year peace agreement is signed?

The assumption of a multi-year tribulation period prior to the Day of the Lord is not rightly read from Scripture. There is no 7 year peace agreement in Scripture. The Day of the Lord is a single day.

These things were never part of mainstream Christian doctrine prior to about 1830 and the efforts of Mr. Darby.

Nowhere in Scripture does it clearly state when Jesus will return, and repeatedly we are warned, even in Jesus' own words - that we will not know the time.

Also, we are warned repeatedly in Scripture to not try to divine the time from Scripture, that such efforts will not be successful, and they are the hallmark of deception.

2 Timothy 4

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

As for Thess 5:9, I’m not sure I would want to use that alone as proof of pre-trib rapture because it is not simple and clear to the point in question. It IS clear to me at least that as born again Christians, we are not appointed to wrath... which the tribulation period clearly is. I would say that Thess 5:9 SUPPORTS the position that as Believers, we escape judgment period. At least the form of judgment which brings God’s wrath... whether it be during the tribulation OR upon the second coming. (which is actually the 3rd coming)

Not appointed to wrath - ok, there have been countless terrible tribulations in the last 2,000 years - and Christians have been agonizely persecuted, we get horribly sick, we have natural disasters befall us, etc. Nowhere are we promised that we can avoid these; we are told that God does not abandon us in our hour of need. To the soldier pinned down, knowing his fate, then overrun and killed, God does not abandon the true believer. We are given whatever we need to get us through and comfort us - what happens is that the true believer, in their hour of need - does not deny Christ, but cries out to God for help and submits himself to God's will. This glorifies God, manifesting his power, faithfulness and mercy.

The "not appointed to wrath" refers being subjected to such tribulations without the benefit of God's help; those not among the elect are truly appointed to wrath, in that they face it alone. Also, God's ultimate wrath is being sentenced to eternal separation from God, consigned to flames for all eternity, on Judgement day.

This seven-year period of wrath can not be assumed to be true - like every other Christian doctrine it must be proven by Scriptural exegesis. If a Church or pastor says something is true that does not mean it does not have to be provable from Scripture. Every meaning we are taught that the Bible conveys must be provable from the Bible.

One first has to come to grips with the fact that one's denomination may be teaching wrong teachings - that are not based on and provable by Scripture. The Bible exhorts us to leave a congregation that has wrong teaching and seek a congregation who's teaching elder / pastor is teaching truthfully.

This is exactly what the Reformers had to do first - admit to themselves that perhaps what the Church was practicing and preaching was actually against what the Bible teaches. Quite difficult, quite revolutionary. But they prayed, they used their God-given intellect and started by working through some very basic questions. Again I say, over and over - Both Old and New Testaments - exhort the believer to not add to or take away from God's Word, but to study it and follow it as it is truly intended.

If we faithfully follow the exhortation to not try to divine the exact date of Christ's return, we don't start trying to read things into Scripture that are not there.

Scripture is the Word of God, and it tells us that it alone is sufficient for our understanding of salvation. Remember, we are to have the faith of a child - take what our Heavenly Father tells us for truth and obey it. We are not to imagine that there is something our Heavenly Father is hiding from us that is something that we need to know. The major fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine are not one or two small passages with subtle and difficult to discern wordings, but are presented quite repeatedly throughout Scripture in a very clear way, either explicity or by a very clear logical inference. God does not hide what we need to know in his revealed Word.

Sounds like you are equating idolatry in your example with an ongoing debate over the interpretation of prophecy.
They are not in the same category.

Neither can this discussion or debate be equated with the Gospel... or false versions of the Gospel.

Be careful about how you deal with error vs deception.

One of us has this all wrong on the tribulation and rapture.
Whether it be you or me, doesn’t matter. Somebody is wrong.
Now tell me... what is the impact of being wrong on this subject? Does it lead someone astray??? How? The position that is wrong is logically a deception not coming from God, and has a purpose behind it, just like God has purpose for the proper understanding of it. I ask you what the purpose is for believing that God spares us from His judgment of the earth’s wicked?

If you believe born again Christians will live through the end days, I submit that the impact of that will be that you are not ready when Christ returns to gather His elect. That does not mean you are not saved, nor does it mean you will not be raptured... just that you will not be ready for it. I would also submit that holding your position robs you of a hope and joy that God intended for you to have AND TO SHARE! I guess the most potentially damaging aspect of your position is that your witness to others is hindered.

You also gave a very good review about why we have so many different christian denominations.

Do you really think it’s God’s will for us to call our brothers in Christ heretics because of disagreements like this? I say no. Again... look at the purpose behind the deception. In this case it is to divide and conquer.

Finally, I would submit that you more properly equate your medallion example with the trust you place in the “reformers”. While much of their work was God-sent, no doubt Satan was right in there too doing his numbers as well. It sounds to me like you place too much trust in their conclusions and writings.

Interesting you said you were raised Methodist (so was I)
I was going to guess Catholic. What are you now?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.