Them good genes.
That's what I meant.
That was a stupid mistake.
Them good genes.
Worthless without ... well, you know.
just look up sophie howard, lucy pinder, and mic e marsh.
I predict a church scandal in your future.
Hardly
Not likely. I do respect their scholarship and, to the extent that they are orthodox, their contribution to theology and ethics (O'Donovan, Newbigin, et al). One of my best friends, an Anglican missionary somewhere in the Middle East, is one of many Anglicans more or less fed up with North American Anglicans (Episcopals), for obvious reasons -- no biblical mooring to their belief systems, acceptance of un-christian conduct in their clergy, etc.
If I would ever accept infant baptism, I would consider, however, becoming a conservative Anglican.
NOOO!!!
(And how is it scandalous to want visual evidence for your statements about English women?)
Did you ask for visual evidence about the statements regarding British teeth?
Church elder: Pastor, Sara, the nubile, voluptuous, 18-year-old daughter of the Johnsons, that nice family from England, has once again come to church scantily clad. Somebody needs to admonish her about it.
Pastor: Bring her to my office and let's examine the visual evidence.
I see nothing wrong with that scenario.
Being a pastor has its privileges.
I'm not actually a pastor. Maybe one day, but not at the moment.
And if there really has been some beautiful nubile young thing wearing all manner of scantliness, I'm sure there is already a mul ude of visual evidence. A private conference would not be necessary. I actually don't meet with wimmin privately anyway.
And ... who wants to see British teeth anyway?
Be careful not to trip while backpedaling.
Hey, I'm not the one who brought up English mammaries. That's all you. I'm just dealing with the situation. If I were (liberal) Anglican, I would perhaps consider viewing the visual evidence, repeatedly, as an expression of my God-given urges, and completely within the norms of good conduct.
Research shows that male sexual stimulation is not primarily verbal, but rather visual. So I didn't post pictures. I was looking out for you. I'd hate for you to have to gouge out your eye; thereafter your job prospects would be limited to pirate churches.
Depends upon the liberal theology used. I think according to feminist theology, your indulgence of your urges would be oppressive bondage from which women need to be liberated.
Maybe. I'm going through Stott's ethic right now (another Anglican!) and he writes that feminist theology (and secular feminism) rightfully reacted against this kind of over-patriarchy that was imposed upon culture. It was actually useful in getting the church out of this wrong, and unbiblical, view that men were overlords and rulers in the church and home. Of course, they took it too far, but the feminists had a valid bone to pick.
And thanks for the lookout -- but I've already severed both my hands and one of my eyes. I actually type using voice-recognition software.
At least I didn't go as far as Origen ... who voluntarily castrated himself!
But he did have a wonderful singing voice.
If you get a hook I guarantee a pirate church will hire you.
I did not know that about him! Are there any extant recordings?
In fact, we don't have alot of Origen's stuff anymore. It's a shame, because we really have him to thank for the classic formulation of the Trinity. I think Chalcedon (451) overreacted against his writings. But what a mind!
What would he have thought about 2d century baptisms, which were in the nude? Too much juggage?
That explains why they needed deaconesses.
It's spelled 'Arminian,' not 'Armenian.'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)