Steve leaves some droppings of his own
But I don't have a problem with the concept of religious entities adopting alternate phrasings and words to explain the faith to the new, uninitiated, and/or uninterested. Sometimes newer tools and approaches make evangelism more effective, right?
Well, of course you're right, so maybe I wasn't being clear. My problem is with using these phrases in place of the traditional description of the Trinity. Many of them come from traditional sources, like Christian poetry and even some Christian prose. If it was nothing more than using these phrases for the purposes of evangelism, I would have said, "nice work," and moved on. I also have a serious problem with something called a "Presbyterian Legislative Committee." Therein is where evil and apostasy gain a toehold. The UCC and Episcopalians both began their headlong dash into ruin with this kind of nonsense.
The Presbyterians have never exactly been firebrands (which is, in itself a problem, see Revelation 3:14-18, but that's for another discussion), so I guess I am concerned that they are tempted to play with this kind of fire. It just seems to me that they are easy pickings and this kind of thing is like inviting the thief into your house.
Not me, dude. I’ll always admit its faults.
Once again, you're right, so I have to backtrack on including you in the herd, but I think you understand the simile.
Ha. Just so you know, I won’t vote for Ms. Clinton, even if she is the best thing the Dems have for ’08. Let’s all hope that’s not the case.
So who are we going to vote for, Strother? There isn't a single GOP candidate in the bullpen right now who I could even remotely consider voting for. Obviously, the same thing applies to the Democrats. The Libertarians don't seem to be moving with alacrity toward getting a candidate who isn't running solely on legalizing pot. The Constitution Party is in complete disarray and the Greens keep bouncing back and forth between modified Marxism and all-out Bolshevism. At the moment I'm seeing a big blank spot on my presidential ballot in 2008.
She couldn’t win a presidential election, anyway.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. She's been all but anointed by the Bush clan, that means Karl Rove might even roll up his sleeves and go to work for her. It seems almost inevitable to me. After all, someone has to get busy implementing the mark of the Beast. Who better than the Beast herself?
Well, of course you're right, so maybe I wasn't being clear. My problem is with using these phrases in place of the traditional description of the Trinity. Many of them come from traditional sources, like Christian poetry and even some Christian prose. If it was nothing more than using these phrases for the purposes of evangelism, I would have said, "nice work," and moved on. I also have a serious problem with something called a "Presbyterian Legislative Committee." Therein is where evil and apostasy gain a toehold. The UCC and Episcopalians both began their headlong dash into ruin with this kind of nonsense.
The Presbyterians have never exactly been firebrands (which is, in itself a problem, see Revelation 3:14-18, but that's for another discussion), so I guess I am concerned that they are tempted to play with this kind of fire. It just seems to me that they are easy pickings and this kind of thing is like inviting the thief into your house.
Not me, dude. I’ll always admit its faults.
Once again, you're right, so I have to backtrack on including you in the herd, but I think you understand the simile.
Ha. Just so you know, I won’t vote for Ms. Clinton, even if she is the best thing the Dems have for ’08. Let’s all hope that’s not the case.
So who are we going to vote for, Strother? There isn't a single GOP candidate in the bullpen right now who I could even remotely consider voting for. Obviously, the same thing applies to the Democrats. The Libertarians don't seem to be moving with alacrity toward getting a candidate who isn't running solely on legalizing pot. The Constitution Party is in complete disarray and the Greens keep bouncing back and forth between modified Marxism and all-out Bolshevism. At the moment I'm seeing a big blank spot on my presidential ballot in 2008.
She couldn’t win a presidential election, anyway.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. She's been all but anointed by the Bush clan, that means Karl Rove might even roll up his sleeves and go to work for her. It seems almost inevitable to me. After all, someone has to get busy implementing the mark of the Beast. Who better than the Beast herself?
posted by Anonymous | 8:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home