On May 9, 5:24=A0pm, Rod <icom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
> =A0 =A0How about on another group like alt.talk.bfd, or something like
> =A0 =A0that ? I can see how the material itself relates to quaker
theology=
,
> =A0 =A0but there are those here that cannot accept it yet, so out of
respe=
ct
> for their feelings, and in an effort to help you keep your word to
> =A0 =A0Yowie, I'll be glad to discuss it with you off this group.
Let me explain that my opponents such as Yowie and Ian (The
Real Doctor) have never explained their feelings adequately
even after I provided an abundance of evidence. Further, I
never gave my word to Yowie; specifically, I stated to Ian
Davis what my policy is. So, in the future on SRQ I reserve
the right to reverse my policy.
> =A0 =A0alt.talk.bfd is an abandoned group except for some ruskies
dumping
> =A0 =A0spam, a quiet and suitable place where no one can complain
> =A0 =A0about the topic or the post contents. Should any of our
discussion
> =A0 =A0be of interest to anyone they can freely join in their. Agreed ?
For the time being, let's split the difference. Boldly, I suggest
we dialogue on soc.history.ancient because here is an audience
where it matters. If you agree, just start something on SHA.
>...
> =A0 =A0I'm not certain just how you believe it will shock me ? Can it be
a=
ny
> more radical than knowing that death isn't the end, but the end isn't
> what Christianity claims it to be ? After all the years of being
> indoctrinated, what could be more radical than making me go thru it
again =
?
Actually, your philosophy on death is perfectly appropriate for SRQ.
Please amplify on SRQ.
As for what can be expanded on SHA, the shocking truth is the
assortment of im****tant figures of the 1st century for which Dr.
Thiering rolls out chapter and verse that never made it into the
encyclopedias. IOW she is the only person in 2000 years to
make the historical revelations.
d.c.
|
