Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

[Bill Taylor]

Judy,   I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say that he is one of our "boys" (I assume you include me in this)? Boyd is way into open theism, which is what Terry and David were discussing a while back -- they made some really interesting observations, too, I might add. But he is not one of my "boys" -- not yet anyway. He'll have to change -- still too Arminian for my liking; although he has done some good work relating to the problem of evil.   Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you are living in the world of Lance.  Attached is a review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might be interested.  The reviewer points out the obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - just all love and dancing with no responsibility.  Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth.  jt   On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bill:  IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are sufficiently similar to do so.    jt: Their gospels are sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match.