XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.christianlife   
      
   >   
   >>We note to date friend james has failed to show *any* church which has a   
   >>religious observation related to "trick or treat" etc. that would make the   
   >>subject valid.   
   >>   
   >>Note also the possession form of churches' as tho it is in fact something   
   >>they support.   
   >>   
   >>How can any reader not consider such vacuous accusations an obvious   
   >>slander?  Why is friend james not confessing obvious slander?  Because the   
   >>idea comes from the jw vatican; in which case confirming its slander is a   
   >>stick in the eye for the jw vatican.   
   >>   
   >>He puts himself in danger of having his ticket to eternal lif taken from   
   >>him.  The jw vatican accordingly holde his salvation in their hands alone.   
   >   
   >Already answered. Check your postings.   
      
   Correction; it was wholly inadequate and not an answer at all.   
      
   As too much of the time it was only a response; any response just to have a   
   response, regardless if relevant; valid; or even false.   
      
   Friend james cann't show even just one example among the 360000 or so   
   churches in this country to confirm the subject slander. Correfction, the   
   jw vatican slander rotely passed along by friend james.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)