(was Out of the Cellar)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Terry wrote:

> 

> [grgaud]

> Terry, this is lame, even for you. You've ignore the question time

> after time. One can only assume you cannot answer it. Again, how is

> one saved?

> 

> TERRY

> Yes, it is lame and No,  I am not going to answer it.  If you want to

> assume I cannot answer it, then that is ok too.


[grgaud]
I don't have to assume anything, Terry, because I KNOW you can't
answer it. If you could you would have answered it a long time ago
because this question has been asked many times before. You're just
afraid of the controversy it will raise. Skeptics will ask how come
your version is different than, say, the Baptist's version, or the
Presbeterian's version and you'll have to explain why and they'll
question you some more until you just give up and use the excuse that
that's just what you believe and you're not obligated to answer any
questions. Sound familiar anyone?

-- 

G. R. Gaudreau
<grgaud@sprint.ca>
<http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/>

• Previous message: (was Out of the Cellar)
• Next message: (was Out of the Cellar)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]