Bill, Thanks so much for the condescending
comment. I at least read ALL of your post and commented accordingly. (Since
you understand the basic principles of writing so much better than I do, I’d
be interested to know how many books and articles have you authored to date?
Surely someone of your persuasion is in the market for your jewels.) izzy
Having said that, I would like to go on to suggest
that your view is still somewhat deficient, in that it does not address the
questions of how it is that these babies are enabled to receive life eternal,
and who it is that makes this possible. I agree with you, and Terry, that they
have not sinned personally. Nevertheless, they have died; they are deceased,
and something must happen to them in order to "save" them from
the sting of that death (which includes not only sinful acts but their
nature of sin). What is that something? You have
not proven to me that infants need to be saved from their nature of sin.
You have made that conclusion, but have not taken me there with you.
Ah yes, Iz, you are
correct. By the way, have you ever heard of a thesis statement, its support
coming in the main body of the text? Please write back when you understand the
basic principles of writing. Until then, I'll protect the jewels.
<SNIP>
Bill
|
- RE: [TruthTalk] Back tot he garden ShieldsFamily
-
