Good points and analysis.
Let's move to more nuclear and solar and fuel cell energy and let the Saudis
sink into their own cesspool. of course, we may have another Iraq to deal
with, but, then, that will give us something to argue about.
Jon
Gary Smith wrote:
Let's see: 17 of 19 hijackers
You know, we haven't found Jimmy Hoffa's body either. Actually, I have it
on good authority that OBL is now rooming with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
At 04:50 PM 9/27/02 -0600 Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
On the WTC. But he orchestrated the first WTC bombing and
Yea, John, give them thar Canadians a break, eh? Frankly, I would rather
that they slaughter the criminals over there, rather than have more come
over here and slaughter more of us.
Besides, with the mighty armed services that Canada has (a TOTAL of 55,000),
they couldn't even muster up another
John W. Redelfs wrote:
I'll bet they could whip the Mexican army if they were to invade.
grin --JWR
Now perhaps here is where you and I may agree. However, given that the
Mexican army is invading Arizona quite successfully on an ongoing basis,
maybe they might night win.
Jon
and my response, and try again.
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Jon Spencer wrote:
It is nice to know that John thinks that there are no moral people
anywhere
in the world (does that include you, John?) I personally take exception
to
this, because here our or little part of the vineyard
Actually, I do agree that this is a big mistake. Since probably at most
only 1/2 of your armed forces are fighting forces, when the Mexican army
reaches your border with the US, you may really miss those 2,000.
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Canada ready to send 2 000 troops along with US
I am an American Saint. The two go together and should cause no one angst,
even Canadian Saints, or American Saints living in Japan.
Jon
Grampa Bill wrote:
Our BLT wrote:
I am a saint first, and then an American. I hope we all feel that
way.
===
Grampa Bill
Have you submitted these to the Professor from England (who may indeed be an
English professor)? The article you referred us to said that Canadians had
the worst sense of humor, but this one about Grandpa is funnier than the NJ
joke.
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
My Dad's new .sig file:
I
It's called manifest destiny.
The main reason that we don't invade Canada is Quebec. I can think of 5 or
6 punch lines to this sentence, but I'll open this contest up to the entire
list.
What we really need on this list is a Saint from Quebec. Marc, can you
recruit one?
Jon
Gary Smith
That thar's the basis for strife. Or as UBL would say Christianity is a
false religion. Ours is true. It makes all the difference. --UBL
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
At 10:05 PM 10/3/02 -0400 Grampa Bill favored us with:
Grampa Bill comments:
I do. But in all candor, I must admit that
I do, and this one's OK. I'll let you know if things change.
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Is the US's goal as benevolent as George Bush would like to make it
seem?
Who guards the guardians in a world police state?
/
Ad hominem is an odd thing to put in here, and it is put in incorrectly, I
might add.
But it appears to me that you chose to let things go until they get out of
hand, assuring us that they will not. I chose to support the view that they
are already out of hand and will get much worse.
Saddam's
Only if Bush puts Janet Reno back in as AG.
Jon
Steven wrote:
Is Colorado City (or Hildale Utah) the next Waco?
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
I'm sorry that I'm being offensive, but sometimes it just cannot be
avoided. Ignorant people are getting us into a war that is not in the
national interest.
I ain't igerint! You stop tellin that right now!
Jon
/
My wife just received a letter from Church Distribution to our bookstore
outlining the changes in their scripture lines. There are only two changes
to the contents of the scriptures:
1. Doctrine and Covenants Section 139, the revelation on members being
required to purchase a white minivan
That's easy - repent! And buy a can of white spray paint.
Jon
OK, I can LIVE with AoF #14 (actually I DO live with it vbg), but
doggoneit, I just bought a RED minivan in July!! NOW what?
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER:
Nobody don't no longer care about good grammar no more.
It bugs me to no end that the ads on TV are full of incorrect grammar. I
suppose they do it so as to appeal to the common man or some other such
stupidity.
Exactly how hard is it to use an adverb where it belongs, rather than using
an
Dictionaries are simply compendiums of common usage; they are not
authoritative, unless you are playing Scrabble. Ain't is in the
dictionary. So what?
Jon
Paul Osborne wrote:
Noticed someone used a term that is a pet peeve of mine. Technically,
the
term irregardless is bad grammar. To be
I would do a complete flip-flop on war with Iraq if the Lord commanded
us. But to the best of my knowledge he has not, has he? --JWR
You need not be commanded in all things. Some things are obvious! :-)
Jon
/
///
John -
Surely you miswrote! Are you trying to say that the Nephites were at war
with terrorists (the Gadiantons)? Or are you saying that the only time the
Nephites struck out at the Gadiantons was when the Lamanites were also
attacking the Nephites?
If so, then its back to the Book of Mormon
Marc -
I congratulate you on an excellent self-analysis, and I do mean this as a
compliment.
Now, repent! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
I think it's time I correct an impression that I somehow have an anti-US
bias. I can see how that would come out, and those of you who know me
from
In a primary election where people are voting to select a candidate to run
in the general election, only members of a particular party should be able
to select their party's candidate. At least, that is my opinion.
Unfortunately, people with an agenda have changed this in many states. Of
course,
Gary Smith wrote:
The reality is, the proof is in the pudding.
Arg! I have heard so many people say this lately, and it is just plain
wrong! It doesn't mean anything!
I have it on EXPERT advice that the proper saying is The proof of the
pudding is in the eating. This DOES make sense. This
I hate to burst your bubble, but truth must prevail! I am 54, and most
people peg me at between 35 and 40. Of course, it does help that I have
teenage boys, and that I beat all of the TQ members on our 25 mile bike ride
last Saturday by a total of about 30 minutes, with 15 minutes coming on the
Paul Osborne wrote:
O my. Shame on you Gary for listening to that kind of music. I prefer Led
Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Alice Cooper, Pink Floyd and Deep Purple. Most
of my mates in the EQ do too. It's nice to have things in common. :-)
U I, too, love Led Zeppelin, from my past days
Actually, I think that he may have been referring to the quote in Section
121 about High Priests, Many are called, but most are dozin' And if he
tries any of that unrighteous dominion stuff around here
Nancy, wife of the still squirming Jon
Paul Osborne wrote:
Hmmm - my husband is
Does this mean that I am a nakedly polytheistic brother of Satan?
Cool! I never thought about it that way.
But as I grow older, I have a harder and harder time twisting. Does that
mean I will someday lose my temple recommend?
Jon
So when the anti-Mormons say, Those twisted Mormons get NAKED
Never, or when you die, or when Christ returns, whichever comes first.
Jon
Cousin Bill wrote:
At some point in the past, Mark wrote:
Bill brings up an interesting point. Is it a good idea to work within a
party in order to change it? Presumably the answer is yes. What if the
party
One must be careful to note, however, that if it were my ancestors who made
those drawings, they had better not depend upon their accuracy. If I were
to draw a picture of modern sheep today, it could definitely be used to
prove that there was an evolutionary transition which occurred today!
Jon
I can assure you that if it were not for the DNC and the Sierra Club, not to
mention Greenpeace, that glacier would be shrinking so fast your home would
be beachfront property. However, now that the Reps have the Senate, say
goodbye to that glacier.
Noj
JWR wrote:
We have a glacier up here in
Who objected to Marc's obvious statement? The Taliban was put in power by
people in Pakistan.
This is a real Duh!. By the way, are you advocating that we attack
Pakistan first, and THEN Iraq? I have a better idea. First, we'll attack
Israel - that will completely fool the fake Islamists and
Very old news. But if 5-4 switches to 4-5, we are ready with Duty to God.
Jon
Sandy Rabinowitz wrote:
I think this is recent news, but I'm not sure. I
didn't see this reported on any of the usual news
sites that I read through.
It appears the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of
the
I have supreme confidence that the Lord knows what He is doing. I also feel
confident that He is happy that we are trying to understand it. As long as
I have been studying science, the assumption that physical laws are constant
across time and space has always been held to be tenuous, subject to
That has always been their goal, just as it is our goal. It's the means
that are important. There are many good Moslems who want to take over the
world just as we do (start buildin' them thar fonts). Then there are the
rest.
We do need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the
I figured that if I added the France option, people would get the what I
thought to be obvious facetiousness, given John's well stated objection to
any preemptive strikes. (Of course, I don't think that they are preemptive,
but reasonable people can disagree; thus John and I can CLEARLY
plus
extremist
clerics, using US taxpayer dollars, who put the Taliban into power.
This is Manuel Noriega all over again.
Jon Spencer wrote:
Who objected to Marc's obvious statement? The Taliban was put in power by
people in Pakistan.
This is a real Duh!. By the way, are you advocating
They are in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. And by the way, as W said, this will
take a long time. Afghanistan will not be converted overnight from a
hellhole to a place of peace and tranquility. However, I look forward to
the day when we can send missionaries there.
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
If
NOW we're in the spirit of things! :-)
Noj
Stacy Smith wrote:
Maybe not so rhetorical as really sarcastic.
Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
OK, I'll bite. What should we do? And why do you think we are moving on
(could you define that please?)?
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
My point still holds even if they are no longer in Afghanistan. Why are we
moving on?
Stacy.
Ahem, it is embarrassing when you dissimulate. We bought oil through the
oil for food program, wherein the money is carefully tracked. And you are
not so stupid as to not know that I am talking about the other type of
transactions that these countries agreed not to do. Or am I incorrect in
that
Then there is ample justification in doing what we do! After all, bringing
happiness to the world is an important role.
Jon
Stacy Smith said with great mirth:
We are surely the laughingstock of the world and also many Americans,
including me.
Stacy.
The Lord knows what He is doing. Your daughter has now acquired all of the
immunities she needs to perform an excellent job, just like her Dad would
do.
Thank her for her willingness to serve!
Jon
Till wrote:
My daughter got her mission call yesterday, to Sao Paulo. She was
basking
in the
Of course! I understood you completely. My statement still stands. What a
narrow view of the charter of our church to think that we only desire to
bring happiness to the select few! :-)
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
I didn't mean LDS; I meant us as a larger part of Americans.
Stacy.
At 07:43
And as we are taught by the Lord, I am turning that scorn into a blessing to
the world!
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
P.S.: I meant that remark rather scornfully.
Stacy.
At 07:43 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Then there is ample justification in doing what we do! After all,
bringing
You must be much more clear than you have been. Again, I ask, what do you
mean by moving on. I can make lots of guesses, but you should know best
what you mean. As an example of your lack of clarity, do you mean that we
are turning our backs to the Taliban and assuming that they no longer pose
Just to be clear, I was making fun of your statement. You say that we are
the laughingstock of the world, and I just laugh at that (Ha ha! :-). The
US is in a very difficult position of having sufficient power to destroy
most any enemy, but having no desire to simply crush an entire country (and
I expect that sometime in the future, sooner or later, the power of the US
will dwindle and someone else will rise to preeminence. That will clearly
be a hard pill to swallow.
But it hasn't happened yet, so let's not worry too much about it.
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote in part:
There's an
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I basically believe we will attack and they in turn attack us. We will
then incite the entire
I know that you are being facetious here, but I truly hope that this is not
your dream. If this were to happen, you would lose all of your sacred
privileges and rights, and the US would be overtaken by the criminals among
us, including those who would like to redistribute your vast wealth.
Jon
Unfortunately, the target is way out in LEFT field, a rather funny place for
JWR to be shooting arrows!
Jon
My point exactly and right on target.
Stacy.
At 11:07 AM 11/07/2002 -0900, you wrote:
Is everyone pretty convinced that Osama bin Laden is still alive? If he
is, maybe we should
John, you seem to have a really blind spot on this issue. This is really
not like you - it has given you Alzheimer disease, I think. The video of
USB claiming responsibility and talking about the plans ahead of time was
played ad nauseum on the TV rag outlets. And while we do have an obligation
You sexist pig! That should have been she he
Jon
Paul Osborne gloatingly wrote:
he he
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
of the new US resolution at
the
Security Council where they, along with the US, hold permanent seats.
Jon Spencer wrote:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII?
pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
So you are absolutely sure that if we attack Iraq that no other country
will get involved against us, is that right? --JWR
When logic fails, attack! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it
knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with:
The President of the United
wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I know that you are being facetious here, but I truly hope that this is
not
your dream. If this were to happen, you would lose all of your sacred
privileges and rights, and the US would be overtaken by the criminals
among
us, including
Collateral damage would take on a whole new meaning!
Jon
Steven Montgomery wrote:
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their
lives in such an attack?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 10:09 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem.
, I don't really call that
winning.
Stacy.
At 10:04 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I can respect your opposition to the way things are going, and part of
me
agrees with you - but only part. I hope, along with you, that your
And we're diggin' as fast as we can, right? :-)
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
We already have the moral low ground. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War.
Jon
Mark Gregson wrote:
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since
The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice
guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their
disability irrelevant.
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I
be able to understand
In one sense -the temporal one - I agree with you. I understand that you
are blind. To me, that would be devastating at first. I would hope that I
could learn to cope.
But I do believe that no matter how hard things were, it would be somehow
fulfilling to be a part of the final struggle, so
Dan R Allen wrote:
Dan:
As do I, although I'm not so sure that won't lead us into untenable
situations - mainly because his decisions are only going to be as good as
his sources.
True, but I think that he is fairly wide about which sources to trust. At
least, that's how it appears to me at
I was hoping for some. Actually, I have given quite a bit of thought to
this question, and I have had a very difficult time with it.
Jon
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively
defend ourselves, and ONE HAS
have some concept of what hell must be like.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
There is no other side of the world anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than
from where you live, but I
be considered a blessing by those people. We have never
done anything like that, and while I live and breathe we never will.
No, it is no rationalization.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes
I am happy and humbled to have been of such great service to you! Let me
know, and I will repeat my performance for you.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
You have no idea how that puts my mind at ease. I cannot tell you how
glad
I am that I live in a day when wars are carefully controlled
Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of view.
If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete shower
(at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no
long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a
Commonwealth. However, the rant and rave that I hear from the left is that
that is not an international coalition.
Well, now we seem to be gaining one. Just like then.
After you refresh your recollections, you can thank me for helping restore
your memory! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Jon
You know you have been hit because there is a great big explosion, and the
guys with the Geiger counters say pops!
That's how you know.
What are you talking about with the Japanese??? Do you actually know what a
dirty bomb is?
It is a conventional explosive with radioactive material
My suggestion is to FIRST elect GBH and THEN get rid of Bush.
Jon
Let's get rid of Bush and elect Hinckley. I should have written his name
in.
Stacy.
At 01:31 AM 11/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
But we have both!
Jon
I'd rather have Hinckley than Bush.
Stacy.
I noted on this list many years ago, that BH Liddell Hart wrote a book in
the late 60's or early 70's, I think, called A History of the Second World
War in which much of this was disclosed. The Japanese tried to get to the
US by going through the Soviets, who, for their own imperialistic reasons,
Just shows to go that if the world were full of smart and humble people,
they would have long ago adopted our divinely inspired Constitution.
Marc A. Schindler silently wrote:
Here's the sound of begging:
Jim Cobabe wrote:
John W. Redelfs
, but
it ate
away most of his genitals and lower abdomen skin. Very gruesome.
If you get it in your lungs there's no immediate problem, but your chance of
getting lung cancer skyrockets.
Jon Spencer wrote:
Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of
view.
If one is exposed
was in place. And
Canadian,
Australian and British ships can't sail any faster than their U.S.
counterparts
-- they headed for the Gulf months ahead of time, just like the U.S. forces
did.
Jon Spencer wrote:
Marc, that's great! You can now go to those books and read how we put
people
: [ZION] Liberal dems unveil...
Jon Spencer wrote:
You sound quite a bit like McAuliffe and Daschle! Blame is a liberal
vice.
You'd never know that by hanging out around here :-/
Bush has total control of the Administration and Congress, but there's still
bugbears under your bed, it seems
was clearly correct in warning us against
beer but not against nuke power plants.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Jim Cobabe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Jon Spencer wrote:
---
Of course
Just a little side note about Japanese treatment of POWs and a little more.
57% of the POWs held by Japan died. A little less than 1% of the POWs held
by Germany and the horrid Hitler died. The world pursued the German war
criminals for 50+ years; the Japanese war criminals pretty much were
The question is: What is 9 times 6?
Jon
Gary Smith wrote:
Ahh, that's true. But what is the question
It's kind of like saying that the answer to life, the universe
and
everything is 42.
Sign Up
Then I think that ALL Utah Mormons should be ex'ed. Hmmm - good bye
President Hinckley.
OK, so that won't work. How about this? Set up a booth in the malls which
will give $100 to anyone with a temple recommend. Collect the names. After
a few weeks, ex them all!
Yes!
By the way, when I get
But how do you know that then is not now?
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Maybe. But that will be then. This is now, and we're to listen to the
counsel
we're given now.
Jim Cobabe wrote:
One party rule will eventually fulfil the prophetic vision of early
Church leaders. There will be only one
You see what happens when we get a person perfectly fitted to be a prophet,
and make him a US President? :-)
Jon
Wilford Woodruff divided the nations after WWI, including making a new
nation called Yugoslavia.
He did? grin If so, he must have done so as a resurrected being. ;-)
Hmmm. It seems to me that the phrase should not be used only from that
time period means that they should not be used EXCEPT. You mileage, as
always, may vary.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
So exactly what does (paraphrasing from memory
My mother-in-law, not a member, saved an article on this from the Charlotte
observer and gave it to my wife. We found the manufacturer and have
arranged to carry their lines (if we can cough up the cash to fund yet
another venture :-). There is a market for this type of dress here in the
South
Oh no! Yet another question I have to struggle with! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Are you sure?
Jon Spencer wrote:
The question is: What is 9 times 6?
Jon
Gary Smith wrote:
Ahh, that's true. But what is the question
It's kind of like saying
in unimportant details.
But in any case the phrase you quote doesn't mean vegetarianism, as a
vegetarian
will eat no meat, not just eat meat sparingly.
Jon Spencer wrote:
So exactly what does (paraphrasing from memory) the following mean: eat
meat sparingly and only in the winter ?
Jon, soon
be
(but for
others, not me!)
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
So exactly what does (paraphrasing from memory) the following mean: eat
meat sparingly and only in the winter ?
That is not what it says. It says, Eat meat sparingly and they should
not be used
Party animal!
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
In my opinion the more parties the better.
//
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
I have heard that one of the most profitable times for Dominos in Provo is
the 12 am shift on Monday morning.
Jon
Paul Osborne wrote:
I've snuck out a few times over the years and it makes me feel guilty.
But, when I've gone shopping after midnight (Monday morning) my
conscience is as clear
As Rick said, Hogwash. Macarthur couldn't stand his ground without taking
out the bridges. The US gov't, infiltrated as it was (and it was) with
traitors, convinced Truman that if this were to occur, the Chinese would be
upset and turn nasty.
However, Macarthur violated the US Constitution and
Then 9 times 6 equals 46. And that IS the correct answer.
Jon
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
-Gary-
what if the person isn't using Euclidean mathematics? Then
9 times 6 may NOT equal 42.
And if he is using Euclidean mathematics?
On my way home from teaching Seminary this morning, I was listening to the
radio. They have a segment from someone who calls herself Kim Commando -
she talks about computer topics. She was speaking to those who are doing
family history, and talked about the fact The Church of Jesus Christ of
I didn't insist on it! I just IMPLIED that I insisted on it. Quite a
difference, don't you think? :-) And I made it 46 rather than 42 just to
confuse the base 13ers. It almost worked, but one (Stephen) caught on.
Isn't it great how we can start a discussion on almost any topic?
Jon
Gary
Hence the need to kill the current INS. It has been a gov't boondoggle
travesty for decades. But be careful! These folks are part of a Union!
This story has been repeated in other forms thousands of times. it is very
good to bring these to light and finally get people mad enough to perhaps
The first article misstates the Republican party platform, and the second
article ignores the fact that socialism denies moral agency, and so is about
as anti-Mormon as you can get - the end does not and cannot justify the
means. Rather, the means dictate the end.
Greed, force and fraud are the
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
We could call it the Ketchikan Duty Free Zone, like they have in the
U.A.E.
JWR - what do you think of this? is it a good idea? If so, I could try to
get it on the North Carolina Republican Party platform. :-)
[SNIP]
Where there's a genuine cloud on the horizon is
Sorry - that drink is against my religion. I use Dr. Pepper.
Jon
Paul Osborne wrote:
JWR's assessment of the WoW is exactly how I think. It's too bad we live
so far away from each other or we could sit down and celebrate our
agreement with a Coke!
;-)
Paul O
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002
years). They also knew that that had been retracted.
Just shows to go ya.
Jon
Larry Jackson wrote:
Jon Spencer:
I use Dr. Pepper.
___
Dr. Pepper is out of network for me.
And that's the trouble with POSs and HMOs and WOWs, etc. The
help line gives a different answer
Satan apparently has done a job on you. Don't you believe Christ? He said
that if you have repented, He has forgotten your sins. What a waste for Him
to forget them and for you not to? Otherwise, why did He go through the
Atonement for you (and me)?
Jut a kindly and humbly administered slap
1 - 100 of 263 matches
Mail list logo