To: rwa265; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; CynicalBear; mitch5501; ...
I engaged in an exchange with Scott, the author of the review you posted, but he closed comments after two rounds (it was getting lengthy) and after his last response, and then shortly deleted the entire exchange.
So i responded at length on my own blog here and told him in case he or anyone wants to comment.
761 posted on
03/26/2014 2:51:33 PM PDT by
daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
To: daniel1212
Thank you for the ping. I won’t have a chance to read it until late tonight or tomorrow, but I’m anxious to check it out.
To: daniel1212
Thanks. Some “light” reading ahead:)
766 posted on
03/26/2014 3:27:43 PM PDT by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: daniel1212
not because an infallible office possessed a gift of being infallible whenever it spoke according to its infallibly-defined criteria/formula. You can't be writing that each time, LOL. It is as painful to read as the logic behind it. Well done.
768 posted on
03/26/2014 3:45:52 PM PDT by
xone
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson