View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 22nd, 2014, 7:40 pm



Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
I cannot see why anyone in the United States should be called out for sharing in their faith with others like them. The president should only show that the United States allows free and open practice of religion, not stop his beliefs and convictions to somehow show an agnostic view of the gov't. The constitution recognizes our right to practice our religion and makes provisions to protect that for ANY person in gov't. It was marked a clearly Christian event because the content was going to be focused for that. Anyone could go, you didn't have to show a Christian pass when you got there to get in. I find it silly to think that a president suddenly cannot be strong in his faith and practice his faith with other like believers with clear intent and motive. No where do I see good coming from a president who goes "agnostic" for the gov'ts sake.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 10:01 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2743
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
Quote:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry prayed with more than 20,000 worshipers at an all-day Christian gathering here


All-day isn't Christian only. And yes, Christian as in there were Christian speakers. But it was open to everyone. Would you trust a Christian to run a Muslim prayer? Or a Budist or Hindu Prayer? It was a prayer event. All were invited. No Muslims offered to lead in Islamic Prayer.

So a Prayer event is called and only Christians show up, so its called a Christian-only event. Its the same logic as a political rally is called and only White people show up, so its called a racist event.

Wags, I understand where you're coming from, and if it were an exclusive event where other religions were banned from entering, I would completely agree. The fact that it was open to everyone and only one group bothered to show (or is being reported to show) doesn't make it exclusive.


August 9th, 2011, 10:13 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
regularjoe12 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
Quote:
I have a problem that he sponsored a Christian-only event.



honest question: why?

This answer applies only because he is wanting to become President, if he wasn't then this really wouldn't matter to me. Is that fair? Don't know, but I do know that I hold the person that is to be elected as POTUS to be more accountable than the rest of us. That being said, the answer is because afaik he didn't include all faiths and it was strictly Christian oriented, which IMO is not something a President should do. Had the event been presented with the idea of Americans coming together to pray/chant/talk/etc for America, now that would have been Presidential.


Ok so it's not that it was a christian event that bothered ya, it's because it was a kinda exclusive group? am I understanding you correctly? If so, thats something I can totally accept.

Yes, that is correct.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 10:14 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
steensn & njroar - Have you even gone to the website for this event?

Again, from The Response (the event) website:
Quote:
Frequently Asked Questions
What does The Response believe?
The Response is a non-denominational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting and has adopted the American Family Association statement of faith.

    We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
    We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
    We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
    We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
    We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
    We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

http://theresponseusa.com/


After viewing the website, I do see where a couple of Rabbis were part of the organization of this event, so it is nice they included 1 other religion. I would prefer to see someone that wants to be leader of the free world to make more of an effort to be inclusive of the people he wants to lead. Is that really too much to ask for?

All of this aside, looking at it from a political opportunity standpoint, he's blown it. He had a prime opportunity to prove he is a leader and is able to bring America together, sadly he just wanted to bring like-minded folks together and play preacher/televangelist for an afternoon. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, its just that, as I said before, I prefer the POTUS to be a true leader and uniter of and for Americans. Just imagine if someone would make an effort to bring all Americans together for a common cause and for the betterment of the USA. Now wouldn't THAT be Presidential? Isn't THAT what a leader is supposed to do?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 10:36 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn & njroar - Have you even gone to the website for this event?


I just don't see how it is relevant...

TheRealWags wrote:
After viewing the website, I do see where a couple of Rabbis were part of the organization of this event, so it is nice they included 1 other religion. I would prefer to see someone that wants to be leader of the free world to make more of an effort to be inclusive of the people he wants to lead. Is that really too much to ask for?


Yes... as you are saying a President can no longer practice their beliefs with fellow believers. If you are looking for a political rally... then look at the political rally's he's led or attended for that side of things.

TheRealWags wrote:
All of this aside, looking at it from a political opportunity standpoint, he's blown it. He had a prime opportunity to prove he is a leader and is able to bring America together, sadly he just wanted to bring like-minded folks together and play preacher/televangelist for an afternoon. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, its just that, as I said before, I prefer the POTUS to be a true leader and uniter of and for Americans. Just imagine if someone would make an effort to bring all Americans together for a common cause and for the betterment of the USA. Now wouldn't THAT be Presidential? Isn't THAT what a leader is supposed to do?


Bringing people together doesn't mean downplaying our differences like they don't exist. It is recognizing those differences and standing for others rights to practice those differences openly. You are looking for someone with your belief structure to come out and lead that way... just like many Christians are waiting for someone to say Jesus and a Muslim to hear Allah come from a politicians mouth.

I see the "it's all good" as a bad thing for us and our culture. It should be "you're free to practice a belief I don't believe in." Thinking everyone should throw away their beliefs and individuality to have some universalist idealism that we will all just get along and religion is the problem just misses the issue.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 11:17 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn & njroar - Have you even gone to the website for this event?


I just don't see how it is relevant...

You don't? Really? :confused:
Let's see, we're discussing a religious event put on by a Presidential candidate, the website is about said event, and you don't think its relevant? Um, ok.... ](*,)
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
After viewing the website, I do see where a couple of Rabbis were part of the organization of this event, so it is nice they included 1 other religion. I would prefer to see someone that wants to be leader of the free world to make more of an effort to be inclusive of the people he wants to lead. Is that really too much to ask for?


Yes... as you are saying a President can no longer practice their beliefs with fellow believers. If you are looking for a political rally... then look at the political rally's he's led or attended for that side of things.

Please point out exactly where I said that. It seems to me you're trying to decipher what I said again and as usual that gets you into trouble as you're usually incorrect.
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
All of this aside, looking at it from a political opportunity standpoint, he's blown it. He had a prime opportunity to prove he is a leader and is able to bring America together, sadly he just wanted to bring like-minded folks together and play preacher/televangelist for an afternoon. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, its just that, as I said before, I prefer the POTUS to be a true leader and uniter of and for Americans. Just imagine if someone would make an effort to bring all Americans together for a common cause and for the betterment of the USA. Now wouldn't THAT be Presidential? Isn't THAT what a leader is supposed to do?


Bringing people together doesn't mean downplaying our differences like they don't exist.

Never said they did
steensn wrote:
It is recognizing those differences and standing for others rights to practice those differences openly. You are looking for someone with your belief structure to come out and lead that way... just like many Christians are waiting for someone to say Jesus and a Muslim to hear Allah come from a politicians mouth.

Again, you need to STOP putting words in other peoples mouths. You're doing it more and more frequently and to be honest, you're bordering on a TROLL at this point.
I NEVER said I wanted someone with my belief structure I said I want a leader of AMERICANS not a leader of X RELIGION as that is what a pastor/father/priest/preacher is. ](*,)
steensn wrote:
I see the "it's all good" as a bad thing for us and our culture. It should be "you're free to practice a belief I don't believe in." Thinking everyone should throw away their beliefs and individuality to have some universalist idealism that we will all just get along and religion is the problem just misses the issue.

I don't know what this "its all good" you're talking about is, care to clarify?

//as an aside, why is it so difficult for people to read a person's words and take them for what they are? Why do people have to 'read' into what someone says? I say what I mean and mean what I say, if you don't understand it or have questions, ask for clarification. How difficult is that?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 11:33 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
TheRealWags wrote:
You don't? Really? :confused:
Let's see, we're discussing a religious event put on by a Presidential candidate, the website is about said event, and you don't think its relevant? Um, ok.... ](*,)


I don't because I can't see the difference between stating it is a Christian focused event and the details of their faith. That stuff should be a given... not extra information.

TheRealWags wrote:
Please point out exactly where I said that. It seems to me you're trying to decipher what I said again and as usual that gets you into trouble as you're usually incorrect.


First shot you got regarding him speaking at a convention focused around his faith you call him out for doing it. How else am I supposed to take it? Why is it even an issue? You'd rather see him not be with others with similar faith to be president. I don;t know how else to take that...

TheRealWags wrote:
Never said they did


Unless I'm taking your stuff to the extreme here, I can't see you promoting anything but that.

TheRealWags wrote:
Again, you need to STOP putting words in other peoples mouths. You're doing it more and more frequently and to be honest, you're bordering on a TROLL at this point.
I NEVER said I wanted someone with my belief structure I said I want a leader of AMERICANS not a leader of X RELIGION as that is what a pastor/father/priest/preacher is. ](*,)


Why can't he be both is my question? I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Maybe I have lost the ability to read English, but the fact you have an issue with a potential president (assuming if he was president you'd have an issue as well) being vocal and involved in his religion as a bad thing seems to point to the fact you have an issue with a president practicing his belief. Maybe it is that you have taken such a wishy washy stance on religion as a whole, but many people see strong involvement in their religion PART of their religion.

You are trying to make a point that it is either or... why can't it be both? Why are you so against it?

TheRealWags wrote:
//as an aside, why is it so difficult for people to read a person's words and take them for what they are? Why do people have to 'read' into what someone says? I say what I mean and mean what I say, if you don't understand it or have questions, ask for clarification. How difficult is that?


The difficulty is that you are objecting so strongly to him leading fellow believers in a prayer meeting I cannot BUT see that as "want a leader of AMERICANS not a leader of X RELIGION" My question is... if you are not limiting him from being a leader in his religion then what are you saying? If it is objectionable for a president to be strong in his faith and lead fellow believers in it, how is that not saying the president shouldn't practice his beliefs and convictions? How are they mutually exclusive? You say they aren't, then say they should be. Maybe I am becoming dummer and dummer as get older but I cannot read it any other way at the moment. I can't see where I am reading into anything... I can only see you telling me that the president shouldn't have a leading role in his religion which limits the practice of his religion and you'd rather see someone who has less religious convictions as president.

You want someone that will lead a prayer for all religions... but what I think you are missing when you say that is that MOST religions are exclusive and don't recognize other religions prayer. For him to lead a group of Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. in prayer would be completely against the point of his faith wouldn't it? I think you say things that you really don't know the implications of because you yourself don't see religion the same ways as others. By "it's all good" I meant a universalist standpoint where many religions are right. If that is not his religious conviction, doing so would be going against his beliefs. Saying the president should/has to be as well a universalist religious leader as well means he has to have a certain point of view on religion to do so.

You may again say "I didn't say that" but what you are not admitting is what you did say has implications to one faith you do not want to recognize. If you want to act like they don't exist... fine we can move on. But they do.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 12:06 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
You don't? Really? :confused:
Let's see, we're discussing a religious event put on by a Presidential candidate, the website is about said event, and you don't think its relevant? Um, ok.... ](*,)

I don't because I can't see the difference between stating it is a Christian focused event and the details of their faith. That stuff should be a given... not extra information.

And that is the problem IMO. You're Christian so you naturally agree with 'prayer meetings' or 'come to Jesus events,' however as POTUS he would represent the entire USA, not just the Christians and as a non-Christian his 'televangelism' does not sit well.

steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Please point out exactly where I said that. It seems to me you're trying to decipher what I said again and as usual that gets you into trouble as you're usually incorrect.


First shot you got regarding him speaking at a convention focused around his faith you call him out for doing it. How else am I supposed to take it? Why is it even an issue? You'd rather see him not be with others with similar faith to be president. I don;t know how else to take that...

Have you actually read this entire thread? I ask because I thought I explained it rather well here:
Quote:
This answer applies only because he is wanting to become President, if he wasn't then this really wouldn't matter to me. Is that fair? Don't know, but I do know that I hold the person that is to be elected as POTUS to be more accountable than the rest of us. That being said, the answer is because afaik he didn't include all faiths and it was strictly Christian oriented, which IMO is not something a President should do. Had the event been presented with the idea of Americans coming together to pray/chant/talk/etc for America, now that would have been Presidential.
I said from the start that my opinion is based upon him being POTUS. I could care less about the whole thing with him as Governor or Senator or Representative, it is ONLY because he wants to be POTUS. I'm sorry, but I can't think of any other way to explain it.
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Never said they did


Unless I'm taking your stuff to the extreme here, I can't see you promoting anything but that.

I would say that either you are taking it to the extreme or there is a disconnect in our communication.
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Again, you need to STOP putting words in other peoples mouths. You're doing it more and more frequently and to be honest, you're bordering on a TROLL at this point.
I NEVER said I wanted someone with my belief structure I said I want a leader of AMERICANS not a leader of X RELIGION as that is what a pastor/father/priest/preacher is. ](*,)


Why can't he be both is my question? I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Maybe I have lost the ability to read English, but the fact you have an issue with a potential president (assuming if he was president you'd have an issue as well) being vocal and involved in his religion as a bad thing seems to point to the fact you have an issue with a president practicing his belief. Maybe it is that you have taken such a wishy washy stance on religion as a whole, but many people see strong involvement in their religion PART of their religion.

You are trying to make a point that it is either or... why can't it be both? Why are you so against it?

I think you're trying to make more out of it than what it is. Let be reiterate, quite simply I am of the opinion that the POTUS should represent ALL of America and its peoples and IMO sponsoring a prayer rally does NOT do that. That is my opinion, I understand that you don't, and wouldn't expect you to, agree, but it really is that simple. As I originally stated I felt the EXACT same way about Huckabee. I do NOT WANT a preacher/priest/religious leader of any sort as my POTUS. Why is that so difficult to understand and accept?
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
//as an aside, why is it so difficult for people to read a person's words and take them for what they are? Why do people have to 'read' into what someone says? I say what I mean and mean what I say, if you don't understand it or have questions, ask for clarification. How difficult is that?


The difficulty is that you are objecting so strongly to him leading fellow believers in a prayer meeting I cannot BUT see that as "want a leader of AMERICANS not a leader of X RELIGION" My question is... if you are not limiting him from being a leader in his religion then what are you saying? If it is objectionable for a president to be strong in his faith and lead fellow believers in it, how is that not saying the president shouldn't practice his beliefs and convictions? How are they mutually exclusive? You say they aren't, then say they should be. Maybe I am becoming dummer and dummer as get older but I cannot read it any other way at the moment. I can't see where I am reading into anything... I can only see you telling me that the president shouldn't have a leading role in his religion which limits the practice of his religion and you'd rather see someone who has less religious convictions as president.

You want someone that will lead a prayer for all religions... but what I think you are missing when you say that is that MOST religions are exclusive and don't recognize other religions prayer. For him to lead a group of Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. in prayer would be completely against the point of his faith wouldn't it? I think you say things that you really don't know the implications of because you yourself don't see religion the same ways as others. By "it's all good" I meant a universalist standpoint where many religions are right. If that is not his religious conviction, doing so would be going against his beliefs. Saying the president should/has to be as well a universalist religious leader as well means he has to have a certain point of view on religion to do so.

You may again say "I didn't say that" but what you are not admitting is what you did say has implications to one faith you do not want to recognize. If you want to act like they don't exist... fine we can move on. But they do.

By your own admission here, someone that is a religious leader cannot lead anyone other than those that are part of their own religion. It seems to me that would lend credence to my opinion of not wanting any religious leader (regardless of faith/religion/etc) to be POTUS. If it were the Dali Lama, I could feel that same exact way.

Does that help to explain my position?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 12:54 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3739
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
so here is an outside question..and I think I know the answer already but it may clear things up between you two. If he were to recognize that partaking in only one religeon's ralley might alienate constituents (sp?) and threw another ralley or two of different faiths....would that make him apear a little bit more open to you Wags?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 9th, 2011, 1:39 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
regularjoe12 wrote:
so here is an outside question..and I think I know the answer already but it may clear things up between you two. If he were to recognize that partaking in only one religeon's ralley might alienate constituents (sp?) and threw another ralley or two of different faiths....would that make him apear a little bit more open to you Wags?

Ideally, I would prefer that religion not be a part of it at all.

That being said, if religion has to be included then market it towards all religions not any faith/religion in particular.

Does this answer your question, regularjoe12?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 1:58 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
Here is the disconnect I think Wags... you are saying "If POTUS does do anything regarding religion then he MUST do it for all faiths to create unity." I am saying "If we separate church and state then the POTUS's decision to practice his religion should have no bearing on what other think of him." Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean he has to then represent all religions, he just has to protect others rights to practice theirs. If freedom of religion applied to everyone but the POTUS the the constitution should have said so. As well, if the POTUS was supposed to be the religious leader of the country, then the constitution would have bestowed him that power.

I see zero benefit for POTUS in that office to pander to all religions. That view goes against the constitution, POTUS's personal freedoms, and their faith. You said you don't want a pastor as POTUS... that means you do not respect others beliefs and make it part of your decision process for president. Would you call me out if I only voted for Christians? I think clearly you think there is a difference and I clearly say there is not.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 2:00 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
TheRealWags wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
so here is an outside question..and I think I know the answer already but it may clear things up between you two. If he were to recognize that partaking in only one religeon's ralley might alienate constituents (sp?) and threw another ralley or two of different faiths....would that make him apear a little bit more open to you Wags?

Ideally, I would prefer that religion not be a part of it at all.

That being said, if religion has to be included then market it towards all religions not any faith/religion in particular.

Does this answer your question, regularjoe12?


Why would the president not be able to practice his religion as he sees fit?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 2:00 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
so here is an outside question..and I think I know the answer already but it may clear things up between you two. If he were to recognize that partaking in only one religeon's ralley might alienate constituents (sp?) and threw another ralley or two of different faiths....would that make him apear a little bit more open to you Wags?

Ideally, I would prefer that religion not be a part of it at all.

That being said, if religion has to be included then market it towards all religions not any faith/religion in particular.

Does this answer your question, regularjoe12?


Why would the president not be able to practice his religion as he sees fit?

Again, show me exactly WHERE I said the President, or anyone else for that matter, is not able to practice his religion as he/she sees fit?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 2:02 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
When you say the POTUS should not be teaching, leading prayer events, preaching, etc you are limiting the expression of his faith. Did you say "let's make a law to ban him from.." no, but you in fact will no vote for someone who is a strong leader in his/her religion for president which is close enough to the same intention.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 2:05 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
Did I say being a Christian is a bad thing? No. So just what are you trying to accomplish with this post? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the purpose of it.

Wags,

I apologize if you took offense, for that was not my intended purpose. What I was legitimately trying to ask was whether or not your reason for concern was based upon what he said, and the underlying tenants for the organization.

I then tried to correlate a past thread about the moral of beliefs of christians, and how that pertains to character, and would be represent a country if elected. As compared to (current administrative people who may have a "heart in the right place" but haven't demonstrated it.) this administration that is not LISTENING to the will of the people.

I wasn't trying to say anyone had a leg up on the morals market, just trying to understand why a man with a strong set of religious beliefs would not be a good candidate to be the POTUS.

I also tried to illustrate how those who do not support a conservative mindset, are doing dastardly things to keep their position, and I'm sure the reverse is true to some extent, but not near as acidic as the current liberal rags.

Thats all, I wasn't trying to pick a fight.

By the way, have you forgiven me for a miscommunication? Based upon the "tone" of your response it didn't appear so.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


August 9th, 2011, 2:07 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.