To: 1000 silverlings
I don’t understand how you can have a caucus defined by a principle that leads believers to radically contradictory beliefs. It is irrational.
173 posted on
02/22/2011 5:26:56 PM PST by
don-o
(He will not share His glory; and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
To: don-o
Believing in the Word of God is not irrational. What do you belive in?
177 posted on
02/22/2011 5:28:10 PM PST by
1000 silverlings
(everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
To: don-o; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; ...
I don’t think
Proddys are properly responsible
for what is
Ratioinal vs Irrational
on the part of RC’s.
178 posted on
02/22/2011 5:30:43 PM PST by
Quix
(Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
To: don-o; 1000 silverlings
I don’t understand how you can have a caucus defined by a principle that leads believers to radically contradictory beliefs. It is irrational. So what do you care? As long as the Caucus thread does not talk about any excluded group it should be fine. I believe that was the original idea behind it. None of the Caucus threads talked about the EO, or the RCC, so why crash the threads?
180 posted on
02/22/2011 5:33:58 PM PST by
wmfights
(If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson