HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danny@utkux1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Hal Camping prediction of Return of Christ
Organization: The University of Tennessee
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:48:47 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92091106234204@ASUACAD.BITNET> Tom Brewer
<NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Hello John:
>
>As one who might be considered a "reformed calvinist" (those two are nearly
>synonymous, but anyhow...), I wouldn't put much stock in any one predicting
>a date of Christ's return. We've seen this spirit of adultery in the past and
>it has always produced a poor testimony to the world. I say adultery because
>the most recent example I remember is the group in Tennessee that followed
>some deceiver's predicted date and began running up bills on their VISAs,
>MASTERCARDs, etc. They thought they wouldn't have to worry about paying off
>the bills. They went on a one-last-time vanity-fair spiritual prostitution
>of themselves with the world. Yes, I know this sounds argumentum ad hominem,
>but I think Christ Himself has already told us we need not bother trying to
>predict the date of His final parousia/return.
>
>Tom Brewer
>

Yea, I remember when a bunch of people around here really believed that
Christ was going to return on that predicted date.  I can't understand
why Christians who are supposed to take the Word of God as it is did 
such a thing.  The Bible says that only the Father know when Jesus is
to return.  It really puzzled me.  Just my 2 cents worth.

Danny

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:12:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Traditional Scriptures, or Scriptural traditions, or vice versa.

Several authors have suggested that the early Catholic and / or Orthodox
church chose the Bible according to "Holy tradition."  It seems to me that
this is the ultimate in circular reasoning.

1.  The church defines what is scripture.
2.  The defined scripture gives the church its authority.
3.  Goto 1.

Dan Graham
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: laperla@byron.u.washington.edu (Juan Perla)
Subject: Favorite Scripture
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
    heart; and YOU SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS."
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:23:48 GMT

anyone?

En Agape,
juan 


p.s Kerry i've been trying to get a hold of you about the bible study,
Please have someone on Internet try to get in touch with me. Thank you
for all your effort.
-- 
Juan Manuel Perla                                    University of Washington
laperla@u.washington.edu             University Computing Services Operations
=============================================================================
"Ha!  Your Leaping Tiger Kung Fu is no match for my Frightened Piglet Style!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT; 14 SEP 92 15:42:09 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:42:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: "You'd Understand If You Weren't Such An Idiot!"

Darren,

The gentlemen in question (Jesse & Tom) have provided interesting insights
in the past.  Agreed the style may sometimes appear to be harsher than
intended but I suspect if you start prefacing all post with IMHO and read
tham as results of personal experience and study you may gain more form them
than the apparent trade of arguements.
Carol L
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT;  7 SEP 92 11:14:07 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:14:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Spong

I can happily agree on most of what Nancy Tinkham said about
Anglicans.  We are a free thinking bunch at times.  Remember
the stir caused by the (then newly appointed) Bishop of Durham
Prof. David Jenkins a few years ago ?  "Church of England
Bishop say Reserection didn't happen"  That was not actually
what he said but it has always been a feature of the Bishops
the C of E (and I suspect other Anglican Churches) that they
provoke thought about belief and are happy to state their
own veiws as thinking people and put those up for debate.  In
short they are to be human.  There are rules for professional
conduct in the cannon but they do not restrict a persons belief.

As for pay structures, for good reason they are kept separate
from the theological side.   I believe this is standard
practice in many organisations where independance of belief
is held to be important.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Carol A Long,  					DISCLAIMER - unless otherwise
IT Service,					stated this message contains
Southampton Institute of Higher Education	my opinion...probably only mine
East Park Terrace,
Southampton	SO9 4WW,   England		RELEASE - Repost at will, with
	UK Fax No : (0703) 222259		acknowlegements to author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z_STAFF_CL@UK.AC.SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:37:46 CDT
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      NICKNAMES...

 I just thought I'd get this in while "the gettin's good"...
 I know most of you on here know me by Theresa...
 That's good, because that's my God-given name...
 All the folks I hang out with here at USM have called me "G"
 for the past two semesters... This is because I took the
 nick-name "G FORCE" from an album title by Kenny G...
 If ya wanna make things loads easier on yourself, type "G"
 instead of Theresa!!!  :)
 I'll know that whatever post bears that letter, will be
 for me/to me/about what I've said!
 Just hopin' to make things move a bit faster for those of
 us who don't have that much time ....
 :) ;)
 I believe Carol already knows this, so... this one's for
 the rest of the list!!!
 Keep the Faith!!!
 SPUDAZO!  (GREEK term meaning, "spare no effort!")
 "G"

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:17:33 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Short Summaries of Christianity
              15 Sep 1992 10:29:00 GMT from
              <Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK>

Carol,

Here is a verse from 1 Timothy which is considered by many scholars to
be one of the earliest creeds:

  Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:
  He was manifested in the flesh,
  vindicated in the Spirit,
  seen by angels,
  preached among the nations,
  believed on in the world,
  taken up in glory.
       -- 1 Tim.3:16

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:48:51 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Second Parousia
              10 Sep 1992 22:34:00 CDT from <BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>

Dear Brian ;

Cataclysmic language in apocalyptic scenarios IS normally used in LITERAL
terms. The function of it is to describe somethingusing overstatement.




Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu"
X-VMS-Cc: AUTENRKL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:49:00 CST
From:         "dr. Daniel Edward Taylor" <AUTENRKL@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The unelectable elect.

> Subj:	RE: The unelectable elect.
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:44:14 CDT
> From: Tom Brewer <NOTTMB%LSUVM.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu>

> Carol L
>
> I'm not sure about what you mean "God-given right"; I'm not even sure there
> is such a thing. But about your reference to Rev 3:20, Christ is standing
> not at a supposed door to an unbeliever's heart, but rather at the door of
> a church of already born-again Christians who are in need of some spiritual
> restoration.
>
> Rev 3:20 is so often misquoted that is rarely examined by the rest of us in
> its context. I would suggest you examine John 6 for starters, and note that
> our Lord teaches no man can come to Christ UNLESS/EXCEPT/UNTIL the Father
> first draws the man to Christ.
>
> Tom Brewer

    Tom:

    Just one question about the above.

    How can one need spiritual restoration if they are a born-again
    Christian?

    Spiritual restoration implys to me a rejection of Christ.
    Therefore, if I reject Christ (in need of spiritual restoration),
    Christ will come again and knock at my heart.  It is still up to
    me wheather I answer the door or not.  If not, I will die a sinner!

    I am a child of God by Choice.  He is always calling,  I just had
    to answer the call.

dr. Daniel Edward Taylor
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
kevin autenrieth            U N D E R   T H E   G A Z E   O F   G O D
autenrkl@sluvca.slu.edu
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
 At the foot of the Cross -- Clouds, rain, fire -- on glassHouse records
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:24:04 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: The unelectable elect.
              at Sep 9, 92 9:43 am

>
>Stephen,
>
>You are a rascal.  Good play on my words.  Of course, I think that the
>Elect are not to be candidates for election, in the human sense.  Funny how
>God's election contains only one vote, His.  If God votes for you, nobody
>can vote against you.
>Even you can't vote against you, isn't that neat?
>
May be neat, but also biblically incorrect..

Jesus stands at the door and waits to be asked in, he does not knock
the door down by force

>I can well remember a Sunday School teacher once saying that that divine
>election had three votes, God voted aye, Satan voted nay, and we each held
>the deciding vote.  What drivel!  That reduces God to a bystander instead
>of a sovereign who chooses His will with no recourse to others.
>

Becareful of the biblical truth you so quaintly call drivel..
God is sovereign but he is no dictator/tyrant/spiritual rapist.

If God implanted his Spirit in me without my persmission then I see that
as being as equally a case of Spiritual Rape as demonic possesion.


>Some will disagree with my sediments here, [sic] No problem.
>

Some would argue that the skuy really isnt shades of purple with pink
polka dots [sic] no problem... (sheeks lame  argument !!)

>Dan Graham
>



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:41:00 CDT
From:         "Love does not subtract, it multiplies." <HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Al Gore's religious beliefs

<       Al Gore's new book, "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human
<Spirit," is possibly one of the most evil and blasphemous books I've
<ever read. In the book, he endorses Eastern Mystery Religions, the
<worship of the ancient goddess, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. Gore
<blasts those ignorant Christians who, he says, "are afraid to open their
<minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief."

Rather than half a sentence qith no context, could someone who's read Gore's
book provide us with a quote of Gore endorsing these things?  I'd have expected
the Pagan press to shout it from the rooftops if a vice-presidential candidate
were to endorse Goddess worship.  They've been awfully quiet.

<       George Bush's membership in the occultic Skull & Bones Society,

Bush's membership in Skull & Bones is ancient news...

<       The Builderberger's secret conferences (from whence came two
<southern democratic governor presidental nominees - Carter and Clinton),

Who are the Builderbergers?

Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:10:46 CDT
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      NEX

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:55:36 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: HOW are we RIGHTEOUS in Christ?
              8 Sep 1992 15:30:46 -0700 from <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>

Dear Mark Drake ;

Mayby I should use the word, HOLINESS.
It is inherent only with the Lord.
Angels are called "holy" but they are NOT inherently so.
All Truth, all Light, all righteousness, all holiness is intuitive ...
inherent with the Lord.
All that is beyond His metaphysical being is derived from Him.
The angels do not sin, for example, not because they have inherent power
over it, but that God Himself keeps them free of it.


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:19:15 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Bible - Part 4

Defending the Bible, Part 4

     Why Can't They Believe?

     It must be remembered that when Adam fell, all of mankind
became "not stupid so that the truth was hard to understand," but
rather hostile to the truth, as enemies of God: God haters.
Unbelievers usually understand the Bible, often well enough to
detect hypocrisy; but they cannot see the Bible as the Word of
God. Unbelievers cannot believe the Bible to be true. After all,
that is the nature of an unbeliever: UNBELIEF.
     In order to see and believe in the things of the Kingdom of
God, the enemy of God must be freed from sin and given a NEW
NATURE; that is, he must be BORN AGAIN. Jesus told Nicodemus
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"
(Jn 3:3). "It is therefore impossible by argument or preaching
alone to cause anyone to believe the Bible. Only God can cause
such belief" (GOD'S HAMMER The Bible and Its Critics, Gordon H.
Clark, p.20).
     Remember too, the Pharisees understood Christ's claims, but
they certainly did not believe them. Just as a Christian can
understand Plato or Aristotle yet not believe in their
philosophies, the unbeliever can likewise learn about
Christianity and the Bible and never believe. Our task as
Christians then is to present the Gospel message from the Bible
as clearly and precisely as possible and leave the results to
God. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God" (Rom 10:17).
     When the Holy Spirit convinces a person, He witnesses to the
Bible. "The Spirit witnesses to the authority of Scripture"
(Clark, p.21). The Holy Spirit convinces the unbeliever that the
Gospel recorded in the Bible is true because the Bible is the
Word of God. "God gave the apostles and preachers the duty of
expounding the message; but the production of belief is the work
of the Spirit, for faith is the gift of God" (Clark, p21).

Tom Brewer NOTTMB@LSUVM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:18:00 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject:      Prayer Request

Thanks of the prayers about the events in San Juan, The Lord adviced me
that the enemy will attack soon Guadalajara with this stuff, please
let's keep praying.

Shalom,
Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:52:27 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New Age in Schools
              14 Sep 1992 19:58:04 EDT from <MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>

MAKS:

I watched the first installment of the New Age Ankerberg show last
night.  Very informative.  I may not be able to see the rest of them,
so I, at least, would appreciate the postings.  If others are not
interested, would you send them to me privately please?

Thanks,

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:52:52 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Re: Seeking a Catholic Perspective

Tim King writes:

>> Am I going around in circles here?  I think so.  The basic question is
>> "Is confession necessary for salvation?".  If the answer is "Yes," then
>> I don't understand how anyone can reject the sacrement and still be saved.

Tim, if someone believes that confession is necessary for salvation,
and still rejects that Sacrament, they *cannot* be saved.

However, if someone doesn't believe that confession is necessary, they
are not really capable of rejecting the Sacrament; they literally do
not know that it exists.

*You* do not know that the Sacrament exists, simply by my telling you
about my beliefs.  If you believed in an Apostolic priesthood,
commissioned by Jesus Christ to forgive sins in His stead, and that
that priesthood exists today as an everlasting sign of God's love for
His people, *then* you would know that the Sacrament existed.

>> If, however, a clear conscience concerning the sacrement is what justifies
>> one before God, confession itself is not necessary, but a clear conscience
>> is.

God doesn't punish people for things that are not their fault.  If you
don't know something, or don't believe something, and had no real
opportunity to do anything about it, what kind of God would deny you
heaven for that?

If you want, therefore, to say that a "clear conscience" is what is
necessary for salvation, not confession, fine.  The Catholic Church
quite explicitly teaches that you can be saved, as a faithful
Protestant Christian.  We do not assert that *anyone* is necessarily
denied salvation.  Salvation is a journey; the Catholic Church sells
the official roadmaps and are one of the few purveyors of gasoline and
motor oil (along with the Orthodox).  Nobody prevents you from finding
the way as well; you just aren't as well equipped as you could be.

>> Everyone who is a non-CC
>> is exempt from this particular Catholic teaching.  But everyone who is a CC
>> is not.  My point is that this renders the teaching meaningless except as a
>> means of social manipulation.

That makes no sense.  First of all, all we said is that God doesn't
condemn you for what you do or do not know, but what you do.  (That is
not salvation by works; it's condemnation by works -- there's a big
difference.)

What you seem to be saying is that a religious body cannot require
anything different from its members than it requires from anybody
else.  In that case, for an evangelical Christian body to require
church attendance and regular Bible reading of its members sounds like
"a means of social manipulation".

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

  "Hatred destroys.  Only love creates."
            -- St. Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before his arrest and
               martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:58:04 EDT
From:         MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject:      New Age in Schools

Subject: New Age in Schools

Ankerberg is doing a lengthy program on New Age infiltration into schools?

Any interest?

Maks
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:29:53 CDT
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      MY PRAYER... ANDREW'S VICTIMS...

 Dear Lord...
 I know I don't always understand your ways, and how you see
 fit to run this big old world, but ... the Hurricane, could have
 wiped out many of my closest friends...
 Thank you for not letting Andrew take a turn for the Gulf Coast!
 Now, I pray that for those families who lost loved ones...
 Lord, be their strength, and encouragement, as you have been
 mine these past six months... Bless and restore to those who've
 been hit, the things they need for survival...
 And, Dear God???
 Thanks for keeping my friends alive down in LongBeach, Ocean Springs,
 and Pascogoula... I can rest easier now, knowing that you kept them
 safe.
 Theresa
 PS... oh... almost forgot.... (how could I forget this???)
 Bless Madge, and Stephen as they try to keep "Christia" the
 shining light for you that it is.... thanks for the friends
 I've made over this list!!! Couldn't have made it without
 Carol, anyway!!!!
 :)
 I love you Lord Jesus!

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: CHRISTIA
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:01:29 -0400
From:         Vicky Chai <VCHAI@SMITH.BITNET>
Subject:      Copyrights

  To anyone who may be interested, CCLI can be contacted at their
  toll free number:
                        800-234-2446.

  Their Customer Service Reps.  (I believe that's what they're
  called) are most friendly and helpful.


  In Christ,

        Vicky
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Jenkins quote...
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:03:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK wrote:
> 
> There was a period when anything this man said that could be mis-quoted or
> miss understood when taken out of context was reported.  From what I 
> remember, the addresses in question were long, academic "on the one hand... 
> on the other hand.."
> 
I remember listening to a full length live interview with David Jenkins. In
this interview his comments on the virgin birth were so vague as to make it 
impossible to decide what his actual belief was. He used the term "fairy 
story" at one point and the media at once latched onto this and proposed 
that Jenkins denied any belief in a virgin birth. I am not sure they were 
wrong, but I can see how he may have been misquoted.

On the issue of the ressurection, the bishop again failed to come down 
firmly on one side of the fence, but he did state that he had serious 
doubts about this, and the "conjuring trick with bones" quote was used 
once again. He effectively said that he was not too concerned about the 
mechanics of the ressurection, which was a mere conjuring trick with 
bones, but rather he was more converned with a "spiritual ressurection".

I agree that Jenkins was quoted out of context, but I also agree that 
his actual views are not biblical. This man is unable to confess with 
his lips that God raised Christ from the dead. 

I believe the Bishop of Durham cares about people, and his beliefs 
are closer to orthodoxy then many (most?) anglican bishops. In some
ways it seems inappropriate that he is held up as an example of the 
liberal arm of the church, when there are ordained atheists like 
Donald Cupit around. However, we are on dangerous ground if we try 
to defend his beliefs as orthodox.

My father once spoke of a bishop in the middle ages who used to argue 
and debate as David Jenkins does. Many people thought he might be a 
heretic, but his arguments were so intellectual that no-one was quite
sure, so they left him alone!

All the best,
  Stephen.
-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston