In a message dated 12/16/2005 1:37:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blainerb: The answer is and always has been, we do not have Satanist
symbols on our buildings. If they appear to be such, then they are only such in
the eye of the beholder. They were never intended to be Satanist symbols,
but the opposite--symbols of Jesus Christ, of heaven, etc. This, of
course, led to a discussion on why we do not have crosses, as you will
remember. And then everyone got all upset because we had stars, not
crosses, on our buildings. Now a lot of people are mad at us because, as
they say at least, we "hate crosses" which we actually do not. Hmmm, we
have been through a lot together, huh Kevin? It gets almost humorous,
doesn't it?
|
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO M... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume ... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume ... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Dean Moore
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume ... Charles Perry Locke
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume ... Charles Perry Locke
- [TruthTalk] DOCTRINAL DISPUTES SELDOM (DEFINE... Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that... Dean Moore