I am relieved to see that Dr McDurmon has in part come to his senses
and, while not expressing the contrition I'd like to see for the severity of the charges he made, not only without, but in fact against all available evidence, I guess I can take him at his word that he really does think he sinned.
The main charges against Comfort were of money-grubbing and indeed
extortion. Dr McDurmon apologised for saying "money-grubbing", yet
didn't say anything about extortion in his apology article. That is a
shame.
Dr McDurmon goes on to say:
And be sure, had I seen any of this, I would not have transgressed on this point.
This is a tacit admission that Dr McDurmon wrote his article in
ignorance, which I pointed out earlier was likely. One hopes he will
reconsider how much research he does in the future before dashing off
such kinds of accusations against faithful brethren.
I searched the apology in vain for any mention of speaking so
disrespectfully and flippantly about Comfort's street evangelism, for
his calling it "high-pressure" (whatever that means), "hidden-agenda,
stealth-attack approach", or "needl(ing) people on the spot about their
sins". Sadly, nothing.
Speaking of which, there are a lot more areas in which this article is lacking.
No apology for attacking the video based on what he wanted to see in it.
No apology for implying that Comfort endorses an approach to evangelism
that is summed up in, as Dr McDurmon put it, "nothing matters more than
saving souls".
No retraction of the unhelpful (at best) line: "A gospel with questionable ethics is no gospel at all."
No apology for calling everything else Comfort has ever said into
question, when he himself has demonstrably twisted Scripture in the
past, thus tempting the objective reader to ignore all of Dr McDurmon's
own writings.
No apology for accusing Comfort of hypocrisy.
All that to say, I am unimpressed at the apology, but my impression from
watching and listening to many hours of Ray Comfort is that he is a
deeply gracious man, who will doubtless be fine with Dr McDurmon's
apology. Dr McDurmon would do well to follow such an example.
Showing posts with label Ray Comfort. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ray Comfort. Show all posts
Friday, March 21, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Joel McDurmon's hit piece on Ray Comfort's "Noah"
About week ago I bought and watched the digital download of Living Waters' "Noah and the Last Days" video. As with earlier LW movies like 180, Evolution vs God, Genius,
etc, it was pre-launched in that format, for $20, before it was to be
launched for free a little later. I have no problem supporting Living
Waters' ministry, so I went ahead with it.
To be honest, I found it to be the weakest of all of their movies so
far, but I still applaud the effort and as always appreciate Ray
Comfort's zeal to share the Gospel with the flakes, fruits, and nuts of
California, the Cereal State.
To my displeasure, a friend sent me a link to Joel McDurmon's recent attack piece on Ray Comfort and the movie, so I'd like to address it here. Let me cut to the chase first - Joel McDurmon has sinned against Ray Comfort in his article, and he should publicly repent and apologise for what he has said.
It is even worse than his unhelpful critique of James White's debate
against Bart Ehrman, which suggested even those years ago that there may
be an unfortunate sort of pattern to Dr McDurmon's train of thought.
Disagreeing with someone doesn't obligate them to
apologise. Dr McDurmon seems to be mostly correct in his review of the content,
except for the way he dealt with 2 Peter 3, which was quite unclear to
me. I don't see how 2 Peter 3 refers to 70 AD at all, and Dr McDurmon seems to
imply that it does, though I wasn't too sure about what he meant in
those sections.
It's the accusations of dishonesty and especially of
money-grubbing that he should apologise for. A commenter made it quite
clear that Dr McDurmon missed the boat on that one, badly, and he should repent. -----------------------------
Michael Earley says:
When you paid for the movie, did you miss this?:
“Those of you who took advantage of our pre-release download offer on “Evolution vs. God” enabled us to fund the production of “Noah—And the Last Days.” We would be grateful if you would consider doing the same with this movie, and in turn help us to continue producing similar projects in the future.
When you download this movie for $19.99, you will get a free downloadable Companion Guide (valued at $4.99) containing further evidence for the Ark and the worldwide Flood, plus a special video message by Ken Ham, “Creation and the Last Days” (valued at $12.99). “Noah—And the Last Days” will be available on YouTube and DVD starting March 28.”
I request you withdraw your slights about money. You sir, are in the wrong on that…
“Those of you who took advantage of our pre-release download offer on “Evolution vs. God” enabled us to fund the production of “Noah—And the Last Days.” We would be grateful if you would consider doing the same with this movie, and in turn help us to continue producing similar projects in the future.
When you download this movie for $19.99, you will get a free downloadable Companion Guide (valued at $4.99) containing further evidence for the Ark and the worldwide Flood, plus a special video message by Ken Ham, “Creation and the Last Days” (valued at $12.99). “Noah—And the Last Days” will be available on YouTube and DVD starting March 28.”
I request you withdraw your slights about money. You sir, are in the wrong on that…
Dr McDurmon says:
I will show you there is no other explanation short of a cavalier sloppiness with the text that would disqualify anyone from being a public teacher of Scripture.
Fine, fine. Comfort is not the best exegete any of us have ever seen.
Now, prove your charges of dishonesty. He can't and he doesn't do so. So he should repent of this sinful accusation.
Comfort begins with the claim that “according to Jesus, the events surrounding the life of Noah are directly related to you.” He refers to the text where Jesus says, “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:26–27). This all, of course, assumed Jesus was talking to you and not His audience, but more of that as we go.
Yet that is poor exegesis of Comfort's remark here. Part of Comfort's claim is that the end will come suddenly upon people, and while I agree with most of Dr McDurmon's discussion of how most of those passages refer to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the obvious parallel and principle remain, which is what Comfort alludes to during his evangelism efforts later on - the urgency of repenting now à la Hebrews 3.
an entire quarter-length of that very short time is devoted to a surprise gospel attack, not addressed at all to the subject the movie purports to be about. This is deceitful.
No, it's not deceitful. Dr McDurmon is just ignorant, and I would presume he didn't watch the trailer either. This is how LW movies are. If he doesn't like them, fine. "I don't like it" is not equivalent to "This is deceitful".
But this kind of hidden-agenda, stealth-attack approach is the very thing that turns away more people than it saves
I am amazed at how foolish this is. Dr McDurmon is supposed to be a Calvinist, and yet here he sounds just like the milquetoast evangellyfish he (rightly) critiques so much in other areas of his life. How precisely do people who are dead in sin get turned away from God more than they were before? And what is his evidence that more were turned away than not? What does he make of the many thoughtful conversations that Comfort had during the movie? Why does he imply that the approach is that which saves? This is just sloppy support for his sinful accusations.
It does not deliver what it promised...it borders on fraud...
Where precisely did it promise something that it did not deliver? Dr McDurmon seems to exegeting his own preconceived impressions of the movie. He judges it by what he thought it would be or wanted it to be and finds it so wanting that he accuses a godly man of deceit and money-grubbing dishonesty.
Some people will say that it’s OK because we should do anything we can do to save souls.
Dr McDurmon disingenuously implies that Comfort or other LW personnel have said this, when in fact they have a long history of saying precisely the opposite and have biblically defended their preferred methods of evangelism at length. Where is Dr McDurmon's refutation? What is Dr McDurmon's preferred method of evangelism? How "effective" is it? How "well" does it "work"? How often does he do it?
This “nothing matters more than saving souls” approach takes more away from Christ’s Commission than it wins.
But who said this? When? Where?
How did Dr McDurmon extract this intention from the hearts of Comfort and other LW personnel? Some private correspondence between Dr McDurmon and Comfort, where Comfort said "Yes, you're right, Joel, I'll do anything to save souls; it doesn't matter what"? What is Dr McDurmon talking about?
It shows the world that Christians will lie and extort in order to do what Christians are allegedly supposed to do.
Now it's not just money-grubbing. Comfort is extorting money from his viewers. Somehow Comfort found a skeleton in Dr McDurmon's closet and forced him to pay $20 to watch a half-hour film, and yet forgot to demand that Dr McDurmon not write a hatchet job review about how much he hated it.
Dr McDurmon should repent of this sinful language.
A gospel with questionable ethics is no gospel at all.
1) So Dr McDurmon believes that the sin of the man proclaiming the Gospel can in fact destroy its power. If I were American Vision, I'd want to check up on that pretty closely.
2) So I guess that means that the only people who should be proclaiming the Gospel are perfect preachers. Maybe we should all walk around like "Brother" Jed Smock and proclaim our sinlessness; at that point Dr McDurmon might say "OK, maybe you can preach the Gospel".
3) In fact Dr McDurmon himself has violated proper ethics in his sinful language about this faithful brother.
If a preacher is willing to twist scripture so transparently like this, how can you trust anything else he says?
Probably the same way Dr McDurmon presumably would like people to trust what he says even though he delivers poor exegesis at times. For example, not long ago he compared the charismatic church to a "wheat field with tares in it".
Yet in Matthew 13:37-38, Jesus explicitly states that the field is not the church, but the world.
And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one..."
Dr McDurmon twisted Scripture. I guess we should never trust anything else he says.
Or, maybe, he'd ask where our charity and patience with a brother are to be found. So I ask him the same question with respect to faithful brother Comfort.
What about hypocrisy in dozens of other areas? For example, say, Christian ministries bordering on false advertising and selling videos filled with half-truths and hidden agendas?
Again with the harsh accusations against brethren. I can't figure out what has prompted this sort of language from Dr McDurmon.
False advertising - where?
Selling videos? That will be given out for free in a week and a half?
Hidden agendas? You mean like sharing the Gospel and encouraging others with a video of how an experienced and skilled evangelist does it?
It was at this point, at about 21:10 through the video, that Comfort turns to his brand of high-pressure evangelism for the rest of the flick.
Perhaps the reason behind all of this is that Dr McDurmon's stomach turns when he thinks of approaching people you don't know on the street in order to share the Gospel with them. One is left wondering why. Could he not at least pat Comfort on the head and say "That's your calling, but not mine"? Why oppose this faithful evangelist in this way?
The very next line, he weakly protests "While I support evangelism, obviously", but it comes across as less than forthright.
I did not pay twenty bucks to watch Ray Comfort needle people on the spot about their sins. I paid to hear about Noah and the Last Days.
And there it is. Dr McDurmon did not want to support LW and their ministry and work. He wanted to be entertained.
And clearly he is not the kind of guy who finds entertainment in people being confronted with the truth of the Law and the Gospel. For my part, I like it a lot. I don't really fault Dr McDurmon for disliking it. I do fault him for his evil speech in his article.
he has to know exactly what he is doing.
My question is: How is it that Dr McDurmon doesn't know exactly what he is doing in this smear?
I want at least 25 percent of my money back.
If it would make Dr McDurmon feel better, if he values his Andrew Jackson that highly, I will personally send him $20. Just say the word, sir, and we will make it happen.
UPDATE: Dr McDurmon sort of apologises.
Joel McDurmon's hit piece on Ray Comfort's "Noah"
About week ago I bought and watched the digital download of Living Waters' "Noah and the Last Days" video. As with earlier LW movies like 180, Evolution vs God, Genius,
etc, it was pre-launched in that format, for $20, before it was to be
launched for free a little later. I have no problem supporting Living
Waters' ministry, so I went ahead with it.
To be honest, I found it to be the weakest of all of their movies so
far, but I still applaud the effort and as always appreciate Ray
Comfort's zeal to share the Gospel with the flakes, fruits, and nuts of
California, the Cereal State.
To my displeasure, a friend sent me a link to Joel McDurmon's recent attack piece on Ray Comfort and the movie, so I'd like to address it here. Let me cut to the chase first - Joel McDurmon has sinned against Ray Comfort in his article, and he should publicly repent and apologise for what he has said.
It is even worse than his unhelpful critique of James White's debate
against Bart Ehrman, which suggested even those years ago that there may
be an unfortunate sort of pattern to Dr McDurmon's train of thought.
Disagreeing with someone doesn't obligate them to
apologise. Dr McDurmon seems to be mostly correct in his review of the content,
except for the way he dealt with 2 Peter 3, which was quite unclear to
me. I don't see how 2 Peter 3 refers to 70 AD at all, and Dr McDurmon seems to
imply that it does, though I wasn't too sure about what he meant in
those sections.
It's the accusations of dishonesty and especially of
money-grubbing that he should apologise for. A commenter made it quite
clear that Dr McDurmon missed the boat on that one, badly, and he should repent. -----------------------------
Michael Earley says:
When you paid for the movie, did you miss this?:
“Those of you who took advantage of our pre-release download offer on “Evolution vs. God” enabled us to fund the production of “Noah—And the Last Days.” We would be grateful if you would consider doing the same with this movie, and in turn help us to continue producing similar projects in the future.
When you download this movie for $19.99, you will get a free downloadable Companion Guide (valued at $4.99) containing further evidence for the Ark and the worldwide Flood, plus a special video message by Ken Ham, “Creation and the Last Days” (valued at $12.99). “Noah—And the Last Days” will be available on YouTube and DVD starting March 28.”
I request you withdraw your slights about money. You sir, are in the wrong on that…
“Those of you who took advantage of our pre-release download offer on “Evolution vs. God” enabled us to fund the production of “Noah—And the Last Days.” We would be grateful if you would consider doing the same with this movie, and in turn help us to continue producing similar projects in the future.
When you download this movie for $19.99, you will get a free downloadable Companion Guide (valued at $4.99) containing further evidence for the Ark and the worldwide Flood, plus a special video message by Ken Ham, “Creation and the Last Days” (valued at $12.99). “Noah—And the Last Days” will be available on YouTube and DVD starting March 28.”
I request you withdraw your slights about money. You sir, are in the wrong on that…
Dr McDurmon says:
I will show you there is no other explanation short of a cavalier sloppiness with the text that would disqualify anyone from being a public teacher of Scripture.
Fine, fine. Comfort is not the best exegete any of us have ever seen.
Now, prove your charges of dishonesty. He can't and he doesn't do so. So he should repent of this sinful accusation.
Comfort begins with the claim that “according to Jesus, the events surrounding the life of Noah are directly related to you.” He refers to the text where Jesus says, “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:26–27). This all, of course, assumed Jesus was talking to you and not His audience, but more of that as we go.
Yet that is poor exegesis of Comfort's remark here. Part of Comfort's claim is that the end will come suddenly upon people, and while I agree with most of Dr McDurmon's discussion of how most of those passages refer to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the obvious parallel and principle remain, which is what Comfort alludes to during his evangelism efforts later on - the urgency of repenting now à la Hebrews 3.
an entire quarter-length of that very short time is devoted to a surprise gospel attack, not addressed at all to the subject the movie purports to be about. This is deceitful.
No, it's not deceitful. Dr McDurmon is just ignorant, and I would presume he didn't watch the trailer either. This is how LW movies are. If he doesn't like them, fine. "I don't like it" is not equivalent to "This is deceitful".
But this kind of hidden-agenda, stealth-attack approach is the very thing that turns away more people than it saves
I am amazed at how foolish this is. Dr McDurmon is supposed to be a Calvinist, and yet here he sounds just like the milquetoast evangellyfish he (rightly) critiques so much in other areas of his life. How precisely do people who are dead in sin get turned away from God more than they were before? And what is his evidence that more were turned away than not? What does he make of the many thoughtful conversations that Comfort had during the movie? Why does he imply that the approach is that which saves? This is just sloppy support for his sinful accusations.
It does not deliver what it promised...it borders on fraud...
Where precisely did it promise something that it did not deliver? Dr McDurmon seems to exegeting his own preconceived impressions of the movie. He judges it by what he thought it would be or wanted it to be and finds it so wanting that he accuses a godly man of deceit and money-grubbing dishonesty.
Some people will say that it’s OK because we should do anything we can do to save souls.
Dr McDurmon disingenuously implies that Comfort or other LW personnel have said this, when in fact they have a long history of saying precisely the opposite and have biblically defended their preferred methods of evangelism at length. Where is Dr McDurmon's refutation? What is Dr McDurmon's preferred method of evangelism? How "effective" is it? How "well" does it "work"? How often does he do it?
This “nothing matters more than saving souls” approach takes more away from Christ’s Commission than it wins.
But who said this? When? Where?
How did Dr McDurmon extract this intention from the hearts of Comfort and other LW personnel? Some private correspondence between Dr McDurmon and Comfort, where Comfort said "Yes, you're right, Joel, I'll do anything to save souls; it doesn't matter what"? What is Dr McDurmon talking about?
It shows the world that Christians will lie and extort in order to do what Christians are allegedly supposed to do.
Now it's not just money-grubbing. Comfort is extorting money from his viewers. Somehow Comfort found a skeleton in Dr McDurmon's closet and forced him to pay $20 to watch a half-hour film, and yet forgot to demand that Dr McDurmon not write a hatchet job review about how much he hated it.
Dr McDurmon should repent of this sinful language.
A gospel with questionable ethics is no gospel at all.
1) So Dr McDurmon believes that the sin of the man proclaiming the Gospel can in fact destroy its power. If I were American Vision, I'd want to check up on that pretty closely.
2) So I guess that means that the only people who should be proclaiming the Gospel are perfect preachers. Maybe we should all walk around like "Brother" Jed Smock and proclaim our sinlessness; at that point Dr McDurmon might say "OK, maybe you can preach the Gospel".
3) In fact Dr McDurmon himself has violated proper ethics in his sinful language about this faithful brother.
If a preacher is willing to twist scripture so transparently like this, how can you trust anything else he says?
Probably the same way Dr McDurmon presumably would like people to trust what he says even though he delivers poor exegesis at times. For example, not long ago he compared the charismatic church to a "wheat field with tares in it".
Yet in Matthew 13:37-38, Jesus explicitly states that the field is not the church, but the world.
And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one..."
Dr McDurmon twisted Scripture. I guess we should never trust anything else he says.
Or, maybe, he'd ask where our charity and patience with a brother are to be found. So I ask him the same question with respect to faithful brother Comfort.
What about hypocrisy in dozens of other areas? For example, say, Christian ministries bordering on false advertising and selling videos filled with half-truths and hidden agendas?
Again with the harsh accusations against brethren. I can't figure out what has prompted this sort of language from Dr McDurmon.
False advertising - where?
Selling videos? That will be given out for free in a week and a half?
Hidden agendas? You mean like sharing the Gospel and encouraging others with a video of how an experienced and skilled evangelist does it?
It was at this point, at about 21:10 through the video, that Comfort turns to his brand of high-pressure evangelism for the rest of the flick.
Perhaps the reason behind all of this is that Dr McDurmon's stomach turns when he thinks of approaching people you don't know on the street in order to share the Gospel with them. One is left wondering why. Could he not at least pat Comfort on the head and say "That's your calling, but not mine"? Why oppose this faithful evangelist in this way?
The very next line, he weakly protests "While I support evangelism, obviously", but it comes across as less than forthright.
I did not pay twenty bucks to watch Ray Comfort needle people on the spot about their sins. I paid to hear about Noah and the Last Days.
And there it is. Dr McDurmon did not want to support LW and their ministry and work. He wanted to be entertained.
And clearly he is not the kind of guy who finds entertainment in people being confronted with the truth of the Law and the Gospel. For my part, I like it a lot. I don't really fault Dr McDurmon for disliking it. I do fault him for his evil speech in his article.
he has to know exactly what he is doing.
My question is: How is it that Dr McDurmon doesn't know exactly what he is doing in this smear?
I want at least 25 percent of my money back.
If it would make Dr McDurmon feel better, if he values his Andrew Jackson that highly, I will personally send him $20. Just say the word, sir, and we will make it happen.
UPDATE: Dr McDurmon sort of apologises.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Evolution vs God and PZ Myers whining
I went ahead and bought and watched Evolution vs God last night. I'm happy to support Living Waters in that way.
Kudos to Ray Comfort, who does a great job narrating the work and running the interviews. Yes, of course they were edited. The video is 35 minutes long. But as someone trying to get better at street evangelism and to get over fears of talking to people I've never met before about serious and profound topics, having just walked up to them on the street, I admire Ray's cheek and manner. He's not intimidated at all, or if he is, he doesn't show it.
I assumed PZ Myers, who makes an extended appearance in the film, would whine that he was taken out of context after the editing of the film was done. Of course he would, because he looked like a self-deceived snake oil salesman in the film (and hey, appearances don't always deceive).
Excerpt
Comfort: "Could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution?"
Myers: "OK, I would point to, as one great example is, look at the genetics of the stickleback."
Comfort: "What's that?"
Myers: "Uh, so stickleback fish are a very interesting colleciton of species that were recently isolated after the end of the Ice Age."
Comfort: "What do they become?"
Myers: "They're various species of stickleback."
Comfort: "They stayed as fish."
Myers: "Well, of course...they're distinctly different fish."
...
Myers: "Human beings are still fish."
Comfort: "Humans are fish?"
Myers: "Yes, of course they are."
...
Myers: "For instance I would say look at Lenski's experiments with bacteria, then."
Comfort: "So what do the bacteria become?"
Myers: "The bacteria are still bacteria, of course."
...
Comfort: "To summarise, the observable evidence that you give me for Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming bacteria."
Myers: "No, it is bacteria acquiring new metabolic capabilities."
If Ray really took PZ Myers out of context in such a way as to misrepresent what Myers had to say (ie, that the evidence he'd adduce to indicateTENSTE(p)NSBMGDaGF occurred is that fish evolved into fish), why is it that I've asked the same question of many other neo-Darwinians over the years and been given the following answers?
-finches evolved into finches
-mosquitoes evolved into mosquitoes
-bacteria evolved into bacteria (which Myers also offered in the film, as seen above)
-salamanders evolved into salamanders
-fruitflies evolved into really jacked-up fruitflies
-moths evolved into moths
"Fish evolved into fish" or "bacteria evolved into bacteria" is entirely consistent with those other answers I've been given.
Anyway, the movie is an enjoyable watch, picking up where Genius and 180 left off. My favorite part was the montage of long dumbfounded response-free pauses when Ray asks a variety of interlocutors the question, "Can you think of any observable evidence of Darwinian evolution where there's a change of kind?" It evokes Richard Dawkins. Go support Living Waters by purchasing the mp4 download, if you can.
Kudos to Ray Comfort, who does a great job narrating the work and running the interviews. Yes, of course they were edited. The video is 35 minutes long. But as someone trying to get better at street evangelism and to get over fears of talking to people I've never met before about serious and profound topics, having just walked up to them on the street, I admire Ray's cheek and manner. He's not intimidated at all, or if he is, he doesn't show it.
I assumed PZ Myers, who makes an extended appearance in the film, would whine that he was taken out of context after the editing of the film was done. Of course he would, because he looked like a self-deceived snake oil salesman in the film (and hey, appearances don't always deceive).
Excerpt
Comfort: "Could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution?"
Myers: "OK, I would point to, as one great example is, look at the genetics of the stickleback."
Comfort: "What's that?"
Myers: "Uh, so stickleback fish are a very interesting colleciton of species that were recently isolated after the end of the Ice Age."
Comfort: "What do they become?"
Myers: "They're various species of stickleback."
Comfort: "They stayed as fish."
Myers: "Well, of course...they're distinctly different fish."
...
Myers: "Human beings are still fish."
Comfort: "Humans are fish?"
Myers: "Yes, of course they are."
...
Myers: "For instance I would say look at Lenski's experiments with bacteria, then."
Comfort: "So what do the bacteria become?"
Myers: "The bacteria are still bacteria, of course."
...
Comfort: "To summarise, the observable evidence that you give me for Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming bacteria."
Myers: "No, it is bacteria acquiring new metabolic capabilities."
If Ray really took PZ Myers out of context in such a way as to misrepresent what Myers had to say (ie, that the evidence he'd adduce to indicate
-finches evolved into finches
-mosquitoes evolved into mosquitoes
-bacteria evolved into bacteria (which Myers also offered in the film, as seen above)
-salamanders evolved into salamanders
-fruitflies evolved into really jacked-up fruitflies
-moths evolved into moths
"Fish evolved into fish" or "bacteria evolved into bacteria" is entirely consistent with those other answers I've been given.
Anyway, the movie is an enjoyable watch, picking up where Genius and 180 left off. My favorite part was the montage of long dumbfounded response-free pauses when Ray asks a variety of interlocutors the question, "Can you think of any observable evidence of Darwinian evolution where there's a change of kind?" It evokes Richard Dawkins. Go support Living Waters by purchasing the mp4 download, if you can.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)