Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

[ttxpress]

conversationally, perhaps Pastor S had a reason for sounding pessimistic; e.g.:   [1.] other posts prove this is not possible; can it be 'ok' while it's false?   [2.] the denial contains the ban, a contradiction which means in part that your readers can understand some things..e.g., exclusive exclusivity; you've alleged that theology is anathema to you, that no theologians are welcome with you..actually, this may be a valid theological idea in a cultic perspective partic while it sensitizs readers to the role of (contradictory) denial/s..      On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:03:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ftr, i requstd your 'hermeneutic'--you pointd me to the KJV per se which is to deny TT any info abt your coalesced theory of its interpretation    [1]jt: Just FTR Gary I have no hermeneutic other than my Bible.  Is that OK?   in synch with that you publically ban theologians and theology inquisitiv access to your mental HoH, but you frequently employ private theology rootd in undeclard hermenuetic against (e.g.) my critique/s of myth--e.g. Wesleys view of sinless perf; in the process you indicatd a bias toward Wesley's error which you avoidd owning up to    [2]jt: Hey I don't publicly ban anything - you can follow all the theologians you can find who impress you along w/Calvin. ||