1 posted on
05/31/2006 7:33:24 PM PDT by
sionnsar
To: ahadams2; meandog; gogeo; Lord Washbourne; Calabash; axegrinder; AnalogReigns; Uriah_lost; ...
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder
Arlin Adams.
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by
sionnsar,
Huber and
newheart.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans:
http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com More Anglican articles
here.
Humor:
The Anglican Blue (by Huber)
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
2 posted on
05/31/2006 7:35:03 PM PDT by
sionnsar
(†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0urs)
To: sionnsar
I've noticed a growing trend of calling all heresies "Gnostic." This is quite inaccurate, especially referring to the homosexual agenda.
3 posted on
05/31/2006 8:21:45 PM PDT by
Zero Sum
(Marxism is the opiate of the masses.)
To: sionnsar
All of this is characteristic of progressive Christianity.
First, I have no idea who Rev. Dr. Jay E. Johnson is or how he managed to chew through the leather straps. I did a quick search of his name and discovered that he's a member of the "California Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry" and a signer of the organization's absurd "Declaration of Religious Support For Equal Civil Marriage Rights". Here's a taste:
We affirm the right to freedom of conscience in this matter: we recognize that the state may not require religious groups to officiate at, or bless, same-gender marriages. By the same token, a denial of civil recognition dishonors the religious convictions of those communities and clergy who do officiate at, and bless, same-gender marriages; the state may not favor the convictions of one religious group over another to deny individuals their fundamental right to marry and have those marriages recognized by civil law.
I've never understood why some liberals attempt to make their arguments from a Biblical standpoint. The fact that they're willing to subvert the Word to further their idiotic agendas shows that they don't believe what it says or consider it sacred. And if that's the case why bother? Why don't they simply proclaim the Bible irrelevant and a hindrance to "progress"?
4 posted on
05/31/2006 8:26:21 PM PDT by
Jaysun
(Cold showers turn me on.)
To: sionnsar
5 posted on
05/31/2006 8:33:59 PM PDT by
Alex Murphy
(Colossians 4:6)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson