..think about this Christine--it'll get you saved
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:24:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..yep, its essentially dualistic in a certain crucial kinda way--and JC explicitly forbids it:
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:09:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..typical of western fundamentalists, [to] have two oft stated doctrinal matrices/antithetical reference points, & the economix of [such] conservatism requires both: that [ppl] serve God & mammon equally energetically simultaneously, else [they] ain't truly red white and blue 
 
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:37:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yo--leaving jt speechless for a spell, how many doctrinal demands do you detect in your own mind set? tell us how you decide/d this: is it none? one? more than one?
 
 
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:45:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:27:35 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jt met a bear.
The bear met jt
The bear was bulgy.
The bulge was jt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while there's (partic jts) doctrinal demandS, then there's more than one requirement for meaning (even in her own mind)
 
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:14:28 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
||
No but, people will continue to do so.
jt
Do you think it should be chameleon like for ppl to form it into whatever shape fits their doctrinal demands?
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to