January 2002: Re: P.J. Bowler book (original) (raw)
Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Previous message: Michael Roberts: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Maybe in reply to: Cmekve@aol.com: "P.J. Bowler book"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Reply: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael,
A bit of mischievous curiosity leads me to ask a question peripheral to the
conversation between you and Steve.
I could not help but note that references to liberal theologians were almost
always accompanied by the adjective, "wooly." One was given the title of
"wooliest of wooly."
Question: Are there, in your estimation, any liberals who are not "wooly"?
Perhaps "unwooly," "shorn," or "merely fuzzy"?
Howard
- Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Previous message: Michael Roberts: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Maybe in reply to: Cmekve@aol.com: "P.J. Bowler book"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Reply: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 17:32:24 EST