uk.religion.christian

• Date Index

---

• Jesus on Ebay (apparently), Gordon Hudson
• Re: An Alternative to Alpha?, Michael J Davis
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: An Alternative to Alpha?, Sam Wilson
• Converted Cricketer?, Steve Hague
  • Re: Converted Cricketer?, Richard Emblem
• i need to learn, onlytiesto
  • Re: i need to learn, Richard Emblem
    • Re: i need to learn, faithintheworld
• Alpha 1, Daveytoo
  • Re: Alpha 1, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Alpha 1, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Alpha 1, John Blake
    • Re: Alpha 1, Michael J Davis
• Re: The impending energy crisis and the end of civilization, Quasin
• The freewill experiment, Giles
  • Re: The freewill experiment, Peter Lear
  • Re: The freewill experiment, Nick Milton
    • Re: The freewill experiment, Giles
      • Re: The freewill experiment, Nick Milton
      • Re: The freewill experiment, Giles
  • Re: The freewill experiment, Michael J Davis
    • Re: The freewill experiment, Michael J Davis
      • Re: The freewill experiment, Giles
  • Re: The freewill experiment, faithintheworld
    • Re: The freewill experiment, Giles
      • Re: The freewill experiment, faithintheworld
      • Re: The freewill experiment, Giles
      • Re: The freewill experiment, faithintheworld
  • Message not available
    • Re: The freewill experiment, Giles
  • Re: The freewill experiment, Gordon Hudson
  • Re: The freewill experiment, Alec Brady
    • Re: The freewill experiment, Giles
      • Re: The freewill experiment, Alec Brady
      • Re: The freewill experiment, faithintheworld
• Re: Work and idleness, Gareth McCaughan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Work and idleness, Quasin
    • Re: Work and idleness, Dave Shield
      • Re: Work and idleness, Quasin
      • Re: Work and idleness, Mitch B
      • Re: Work and idleness, David Aldred
      • Re: Work and idleness, Dave Shield
      • Re: Work and idleness, Alec Brady
      • Re: Work and idleness, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Work and idleness, Quasin
      • Re: Work and idleness, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Work and idleness, Quasin
  • Re: Work and idleness, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Work and idleness, Steve Hague
  • Re: Work and idleness, Richard Emblem
    • Re: Work and idleness, Quasin
• Missing, presumed...?, Alec Brady
  • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Debbie
    • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Missing, presumed...?, David Aldred
      • Message not available
      • Re: Missing, presumed...?, David Aldred
      • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Missing, presumed...?, David Aldred
    • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Alec Brady
  • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Quasin
    • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Alec Brady
    • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Patrick Herring
      • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Patrick Herring
      • Re: Missing, presumed...?, David Aldred
      • Re: Missing, presumed...?, Robert Marshall
• Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Robert Marshall
  • Message not available
    • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Robert Marshall
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Kennedy Fraser
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Michael J Davis
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Alan Zanker
  • Message not available
    • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Nick Milton
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Michael J Davis
  • Message not available
    • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Giles
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Michael J Davis
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Giles
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Quasin
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Dave Shield
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Gordon Hudson
      • Message not available
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Sam Wilson
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Sam Wilson
  • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Daveytoo
    • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Alan Zanker
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Michael J Davis
    • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Steve Hague
    • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Michael J Davis
  • Message not available
    • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Tim W
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Michael J Davis
      • Re: The world's funniest religious joke, Alec Brady
• Ecumenism, Giles
• Bible not complete, Richard
  • Re: Bible not complete, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
    • Re: Bible not complete, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Bible not complete, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
      • Message not available
      • Re: Bible not complete, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Bible not complete, Richard
  • Re: Bible not complete, David Aldred
  • Re: Bible not complete, Kendall K. Down
• Sample the 100 minute Bible:, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Sample the 100 minute Bible:, Tim W
    • Re: Sample the 100 minute Bible:, Quasin
      • Message not available
      • Re: Sample the 100 minute Bible:, Quasin
• What is Hell?, John Blake
• The gay penguin, Patrick Herring
  • Re: The gay penguin, Kendall K. Down
    • Re: The gay penguin, Debbie
    • Message not available
      • Re: The gay penguin, Michael J Davis
    • Message not available
      • Re: The gay penguin, Kendall K. Down
• the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
  • Re: the challenge of faith, Peter Lear
    • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Michael J Davis
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Peter Lear
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
    • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Nick Milton
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Nick Milton
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Dave Shield
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Alec Brady
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Nick Milton
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Nick Milton
      • Re: the challenge of faith, faithintheworld
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, faithintheworld
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, faithintheworld
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Tom Higgins
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: the challenge of faith, faithintheworld
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Mitch B
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Tom Higgins
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, faithintheworld
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, David Aldred
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Alec Brady
      • Re: the challenge of faith, John Blake
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, David Aldred
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Mitch B
      • Re: the challenge of faith, faithintheworld
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: the challenge of faith, faithintheworld
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Alec Brady
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Simon Woods
      • Message not available
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Daveytoo
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Quasin
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Proshome
      • Re: the challenge of faith, Peter R
    • Re: the challenge of faith, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: the challenge of faith, Peter R
• When is a state not a state?, steven
  • Re: When is a state not a state?, David Aldred
    • Re: When is a state not a state?, Tom Higgins
• Hurricane Rita - the explanation, steven
  • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, Nick Milton
  • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, Trevor Jenkins
  • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, Quasin
    • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, Giles
      • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, Nick Milton
      • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, Philip Gardner
  • Re: Hurricane Rita - the explanation, marcandmia
• Rejoice with me!, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Rejoice with me!, Nick Milton
    • Re: Rejoice with me!, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Rejoice with me!, Daveytoo
  • Re: Rejoice with me!, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Rejoice with me!, Neil Davey
    • Re: Rejoice with me!, Michael J Davis
      • Message not available
      • Re: Rejoice with me!, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Rejoice with me!, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Rejoice with me!, Peter R
    • Re: Rejoice with me!, Michael J Davis
• Moderator, Proshome
  • Re: Moderator, David Aldred
    • Re: Moderator, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Moderator, David Aldred
  • Re: Moderator, moderator for uk.religion.christian
  • Re: Moderator, Quasin
    • Re: Moderator, Mitch B
      • Re: Moderator, Quasin
• A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, Michael J Davis
  • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, faithintheworld
  • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, David Ould
    • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, Michael J Davis
      • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, Michael J Davis
      • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, David Ould
      • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, Michael J Davis
      • Re: A problem with Predestination v. Open offer of salvation, David Ould
• How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
  • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, faithintheworld
    • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Robert Marshall
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Proshome
    • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Proshome
  • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Gordon Hudson
  • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Kim Tame
    • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, David Lane
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Michael J Davis
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, David Lane
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Michael J Davis
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Dave Shield
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Tony Gillam
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Proshome
    • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, David Ould
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Proshome
  • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, David Lane
    • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Proshome
  • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Gareth McCaughan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
    • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, David Lane
      • Re: How Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Richard
• If God is so important, why not bear testimony, Richard
  • Re: If God is so important, why not bear testimony, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: If God is so important, why not bear testimony, Richard
      • Re: If God is so important, why not bear testimony, faithintheworld
      • Re: If God is so important, why not bear testimony, Richard
      • Re: If God is so important, why not bear testimony, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: If God is so important, why not bear testimony, Michael J Davis
• The Hundred Minute Bible, Robert Marshall
  • Re: The Hundred Minute Bible, David Aldred
  • Re: The Hundred Minute Bible, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: The Hundred Minute Bible, David Lane
    • Re: The Hundred Minute Bible, Robert Marshall
• Death and Hell, Richard
  • Re: Death and Hell, marcandmia
  • Re: Death and Hell, Richard
    • Re: Death and Hell, David Lane
      • Re: Death and Hell, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Death and Hell, Richard
      • Re: Death and Hell, David Lane
• Forsake your false tradition, Richard
  • Re: Forsake your false tradition, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Forsake your false tradition, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Forsake your false tradition, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
      • Re: Forsake your false tradition, Richard
      • Re: Forsake your false tradition, David Lane
      • Re: Forsake your false tradition, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
  • Re: Forsake your false tradition, David Lane
  • Re: Forsake your false tradition, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Forsake your false tradition, Kendall K . Down
• Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Mitch B
  • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
    • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Mark Goodge
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, sarban
  • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
    • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Philip Gardner
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, David Lane
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, David Lane
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Message not available
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Message not available
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Message not available
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Message not available
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Alan Zanker
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Alan Zanker
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Robert Marshall
    • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
    • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Debbie
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Alan Zanker
      • Message not available
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Alan Zanker
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Alan Zanker
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Alan Zanker
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Proshome
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, faithintheworld
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Mark Goodge
      • Message not available
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, David Lane
    • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, faithintheworld
  • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Proshome
  • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, marcandmia
    • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Fundamentalism - threat or renewal?, Peter Lear
• George McDonald RIP d. 18.9.1905, Michael J Davis
• Re: ID rears its ugly head, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Tony Gillam
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Kendall K. Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Sam Wilson
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Michael J Davis
      • Message not available
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Gareth McCaughan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Michael J Davis
      • Re: ID rears its ugly head, Kendall K . Down
• Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, marcandmia
  • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Richard
  • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, David Lane
    • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Steve Hague
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, marcandmia
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Steve Hague
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Giles
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, marcandmia
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, ian.cardinal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, David Lane
  • Re: Do Christians long for Jesus to return?, Tweetie Pooh
• Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
    • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Aldred
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Aldred
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Aldred
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Aldred
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Aldred
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Aldred
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Aldred
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Simon Woods
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Simon Woods
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Simon Woods
      • 2Thes 1:11, David Ould
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Debbie
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, David Ould
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Debbie
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, David Ould
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Debbie
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, David Ould
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Richard Emblem
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Kim Tame
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Debbie
      • Message not available
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Michael J Davis
      • Message not available
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Alec Brady
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Mitch B
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Richard Dudley
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Richard Dudley
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Simon Woods
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, David Ould
      • Re: 2Thes 1:11, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, David Ould
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Kim Tame
  • Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: And so it continues, Michael J Davis
• Re: ARCIC on Mary, Michael J Davis
  • Re: ARCIC on Mary, David Ould
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: ARCIC on Mary, Michael J Davis
    • Re: ARCIC on Mary, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: ARCIC on Mary, Michael J Davis
    • Re: ARCIC on Mary, David Ould
  • Re: ARCIC on Mary, Michael J Davis
  • Re: ARCIC on Mary, Michael J Davis
    • Re: ARCIC on Mary, David Ould
      • Re: ARCIC on Mary, Michael J Davis
      • Re: ARCIC on Mary, David Ould
• Re: Churches in London?, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Churches in London?, David Ould
    • Re: Churches in London?, Gareth McCaughan
• Spiritual and physical life, Proshome
  • Re: Spiritual and physical life, John Blake
• inspired by a movie......, Daveytoo
  • Re: inspired by a movie......, Gordon Hudson
    • Re: inspired by a movie......, Daveytoo
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, David Lane
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: inspired by a movie......, Kendall K. Down
    • Re: inspired by a movie......, Daveytoo
  • Re: inspired by a movie......, Richard Emblem
    • Re: inspired by a movie......, Quasin
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, Michael J Davis
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, Quasin
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, David Lane
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, Dave Shield
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, Richard Emblem
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, David Lane
      • Re: inspired by a movie......, Richard Emblem
  • Re: inspired by a movie......, Quasin
• Memorials on roadsides etc, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, Gordon Hudson
  • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, John Blake
    • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, Quasin
  • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, David Lane
  • Re: Memorials on roadsides etc, Nigel Randell
• A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Robert Marshall
  • Message not available
    • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Robert Marshall
  • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Quasin
    • Message not available
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Quasin
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Quasin
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Sam Wilson
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Quasin
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, faithintheworld
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, David Aldred
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Nicholas Young
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Dave Shield
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Alan Zanker
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Dave Shield
      • Message not available
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Nicholas Young
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Tom Higgins
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Peter Lear
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Message not available
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Kennedy Fraser
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Alec Brady
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Nick Milton
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Alec Brady
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Proshome
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Debbie
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Quasin
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Proshome
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Richard Emblem
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Proshome
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Peter Lear
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Proshome
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Peter Lear
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Quasin
      • Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?, Proshome
• Re: Nominators needed, David Lane
• Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, all
  • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Alec Brady
    • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, all
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Peter Lear
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, all
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, David Lane
      • Message not available
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Daveytoo
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, all
      • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: Random question - what book of the Bible should I read next?, Peter R
• Bad, bad Katerina, Proshome
  • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, steven
      • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Simon Woods
    • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, marcandmia
      • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, marcandmia
      • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Bernie
      • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Tim W
    • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Tim W
      • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Tom Higgins
    • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Bernie
  • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, marcandmia
    • Re: Bad, bad Katerina, Bernie
• insprational film - 'Molokai', Daveytoo
  • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K. Down
    • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Quasin
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K . Down
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Dave Shield
    • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', David Aldred
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K. Down
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Alec Brady
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Michael J Davis
    • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Alec Brady
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K . Down
    • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Richard Emblem
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K. Down
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Richard Emblem
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K . Down
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K. Down
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Daveytoo
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Kendall K. Down
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Daveytoo
    • Re: insprational film - 'Molokai', Richard Emblem
• Re: On the inspiration of Scripture, William
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: On the inspiration of Scripture, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: On the inspiration of Scripture, Kim Tame
  • Re: On the inspiration of Scripture, Charles Lindsey
  • Re: On the inspiration of Scripture, David Lane
  • Re: On the inspiration of Scripture, Jonathan Wheeler
• primitive Christianity in Britain, marcandmia
  • Re: primitive Christianity in Britain, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: primitive Christianity in Britain, David Lane
    • Re: primitive Christianity in Britain, Mitch B
      • Re: primitive Christianity in Britain, David Lane
• Re: Another test, Peter R
  • Re: Another test, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Another test, Paul Roberts
    • Re: Another test, Mitch B
      • Re: Another test, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Another test, David Ould
      • Re: Another test, Paul Roberts
    • Re: Another test, David Aldred
• Re: prayers for peace in ni anyone?, David Lane
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: prayers for peace in ni anyone?, Michael J Davis
  • Re: prayers for peace in ni anyone?, Alec Brady
    • Re: prayers for peace in ni anyone?, Daveytoo
• davey's conversion - online, Daveytoo
  • Re: davey's conversion - online, David Lane
    • Re: davey's conversion - online, Daveytoo
      • Re: davey's conversion - online, David Lane
  • Re: davey's conversion - online, Richard Emblem
• Re: energy and transport, David Lane
  • Message not available
    • Re: energy and transport, David Lane
      • Re: energy and transport, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: energy and transport, David Aldred
      • Re: energy and transport, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: energy and transport, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: energy and transport, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: energy and transport, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: energy and transport, David Lane
      • Re: energy and transport, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: energy and transport, David Lane
      • Re: energy and transport, Debbie
      • Re: energy and transport, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: energy and transport, Dave Shield
      • Re: energy and transport, Daveytoo
      • Re: energy and transport, David Aldred
      • Re: energy and transport, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: energy and transport, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: energy and transport, Daveytoo
      • Re: energy and transport, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: energy and transport, Quasin
      • Re: energy and transport, Ian Smith
      • Re: energy and transport, Michael J Davis
      • Re: energy and transport, David Lane
      • Re: energy and transport, Michael J Davis
• Re: Back!, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Back!, Trevor Jenkins
    • Re: Back!, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Back!, Trevor Jenkins
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Back!, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Back!, Trevor Jenkins
  • Re: Back!, Kendall K . Down
• Re: Help a Christian smoker, Proshome
• New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Richard Emblem
  • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, William
    • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, marcandmia
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, William
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, marcandmia
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, William
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Robert Marshall
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Message not available
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Emma Pease
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Giles
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Giles
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Giles
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, faithintheworld
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Giles
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, faithintheworld
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Alec Brady
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, faithintheworld
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Dave Shield
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Sam Wilson
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Giles
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, faithintheworld
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Daveytoo
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Tony Gillam
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Tony Gillam
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Dave Shield
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Nick Milton
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, marcandmia
    • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, steven
    • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Philip Gardner
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Philip Gardner
    • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, marcandmia
  • Re: New Orleans tragedy - Acts of God or sins of humanity?, Giles
• Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Paul Hardy
  • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Kendall K . Down
  • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Richard Emblem
    • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Dave Shield
  • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., David Lane
    • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., David Lane
      • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Dave Shield
      • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., David Lane
    • Re: Come bombs, and fall on Rhyl..., Michael J Davis
• Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Richard Emblem
    • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
  • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
    • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Simon Crouch
    • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, faithintheworld
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, John Blake
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, David Ould
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, John Blake
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, David Ould
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Alec Brady
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, John Blake
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, David Ould
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, John Blake
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, David Ould
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Debbie
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Peter Lear
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Alec Brady
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Alec Brady
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Alec Brady
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Paul Dean
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Simon Crouch
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, William
  • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, John Blake
    • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Message not available
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Is atheism a sin? -- was Re: Help a Christian smoker, Kendall K. Down
• Re: For mathematicians (and others), Robert Marshall
• Peter Paul and God, Proshome
• The Hurricane - how YOU can help, steven
  • Re: The Hurricane - how YOU can help, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: The Hurricane - how YOU can help, sarban
  • Re: The Hurricane - how YOU can help, Richard Emblem
• Israel, Richard
  • Re: Israel, Richard
• Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, steven
  • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, steven
  • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, steven
    • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, William
      • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury on Katrina, Peter R
• New in Christ, Neil Davey
  • Re: New in Christ, Tweetie Pooh
  • Re: New in Christ, Richard Emblem
  • Re: New in Christ, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: New in Christ, Jo Bennett
  • Re: New in Christ, David Lane
  • Re: New in Christ, Peter R
• Re: Did Jesus need to suffer in order to bring about atonement?, Proshome
  • Re: Did Jesus need to suffer in order to bring about atonement?, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Did Jesus need to suffer in order to bring about atonement?, Proshome
• God saved New Orleans, steven
  • Re: God saved New Orleans, William
    • Re: God saved New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, steven
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, steven
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Mitch B
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, steven
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, steven
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, William
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, steven
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, sarban
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Message not available
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Daveytoo
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Michael J Davis
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Michael J Davis
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Michael J Davis
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Michael J Davis
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Sam Wilson
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Neil Davey
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, William
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, William
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, William
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Nick Milton
      • Re: God saved New Orleans, Quasin
• Penal substitution, John Fricis Ievins
  • Re: Penal substitution, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: Penal substitution, David Ould
    • Re: Penal substitution, Alec Brady
      • Re: Penal substitution, Paul Dean
      • Re: Penal substitution, Jonathan Wheeler
    • Re: Penal substitution, John Fricis Ievins
      • Re: Penal substitution, David Ould
      • Re: Penal substitution, John Fricis Ievins
      • Re: Penal substitution, David Ould
  • Re: Penal substitution, sarban
    • Re: Penal substitution, Quasin
      • Re: Penal substitution, sarban
      • Re: Penal substitution, John Fricis Ievins
      • Re: Penal substitution, sarban
      • Re: Penal substitution, John Fricis Ievins
      • Re: Penal substitution, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Penal substitution, sarban
      • Re: Penal substitution, Paul Dean
  • Re: Penal substitution, Michael J Davis
• Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter
  • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Quasin
    • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K . Down
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
    • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., David Ould
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., David Ould
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Steve Wilson
      • Message not available
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Steve Wilson
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Quasin
      • Message not available
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., David Ould
  • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
    • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., David Ould
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., David Ould
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
    • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
    • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Quasin
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K. Down
  • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
    • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
      • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Peter R
  • Re: Gay and Christian - An Evangelical's perspective on Homosexual Practice., Steve Wilson
• Was "Re: the purpose of people starving to death is...", James
• Re: Conversation with God, Jonathan Wheeler
  • Re: Conversation with God, Kendall K. Down
    • Re: Conversation with God, Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Conversation with God, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: Conversation with God, William
    • Re: Conversation with God, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: Conversation with God, Jonathan Wheeler
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Conversation with God, Jonathan Wheeler
• OT query re photos, Richard Emblem
  • Re: OT query re photos, Mike Williams
    • Re: OT query re photos, Richard Emblem
  • Re: OT query re photos, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: OT query re photos, Richard Emblem
• New Concise RC Catechism due out, Richard Emblem
• [ADMIN] useful things, charter, FAQs etc, moderator for uk . religion . christian - Debbie Herring
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • [ADMIN] useful things, charter, FAQs etc, moderator for uk . religion . christian - Debbie Herring
  • [ADMIN] useful things, charter, FAQs etc, moderator for uk . religion . christian - Debbie Herring
  • [ADMIN] useful things, charter, FAQs etc, moderator for uk . religion . christian - Debbie Herring
• Re: Moral dilemna No4 - conclusion, Michael J Davis
• Alpha course, Daveytoo
  • Re: Alpha course, Richard Emblem
  • Re: Alpha course, Gordon Hudson
    • Re: Alpha course, Daveytoo
      • Re: Alpha course, Pete Broadbent
      • Re: Alpha course, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Alpha course, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course, Rhiannon Macfie Miller
      • Re: Alpha course, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Alpha course, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Alpha course, Nicholas Young
      • Re: Alpha course, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Alpha course, Tony Gillam
      • Re: Alpha course, Kim Tame
      • Re: Alpha course, Daveytoo
      • Re: Alpha course, Daveytoo
• Where's health and safety?, Robert Marshall
  • Re: Where's health and safety?, Kim Tame
    • Re: Where's health and safety?, Quasin
  • Re: Where's health and safety?, David Lane
    • Re: Where's health and safety?, Quasin
  • Re: Where's health and safety?, Michael J Davis
• the er "canon" of Scripture, Michael Falconer
  • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, sarban
  • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Prai Jei
    • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, William
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Peter R
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Trevor Jenkins
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Peter R
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Alec Brady
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Robert Marshall
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Robert Marshall
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Robert Marshall
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Tony Gillam
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Gareth McCaughan
      • Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Michael J Davis
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Nick Milton
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Robert Marshall
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Sam Wilson
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Nicholas Young
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], David Aldred
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Alec Brady
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Simon Crouch
      • Message not available
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Michael J Davis
      • Re: Numbers, & Su Doku [was: the er "canon" of Scripture], Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Peter R
      • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Prai Jei
    • Re: the er "canon" of Scripture, Kendall K. Down
• Re: Wedding invitation, Patrick Herring
  • Re: Wedding invitation, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: Wedding invitation, David Lane
  • Re: Wedding invitation, Michael J Davis
• Vale of tears, Cassandra
  • Re: Vale of tears, Quasin
• solitary dj!, Michael Falconer
  • Re: solitary dj!, David Lane
• Re: Llandudno website, Robert Marshall
  • Re: Llandudno website, Kendall K . Down
    • Message not available
      • Re: Llandudno website, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Llandudno website, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Llandudno website, Nick Milton
      • Re: Llandudno website, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Llandudno website, Kendall K . Down
• What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [3], Richard
  • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [3], Richard
• The Real Danger: Unorganized Irreligiousness, harunyahya2011
  • Re: The Real Danger: Unorganized Irreligiousness, John Blake
• What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [2], Richard
  • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [2], David Lane
    • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [2], Richard
  • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [2], Gordon Hudson
    • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [2], Richard
• What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [1], Richard
  • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [1], marcandmia
    • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [1], Proshome
      • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [1], Nick Milton
      • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [1], Dave Shield
      • Re: What honest seekers of truth should seriously consider - parallels [1], Proshome
• Re: New Orleans, fergus
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
    • Re: New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, faithintheworld
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Alec Brady
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans, Alec Brady
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Alec Brady
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: New Orleans, Dave Shield
      • Re: New Orleans, Daveytoo
      • Re: New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Robert Marshall
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, William
      • Re: New Orleans, Robert Marshall
      • Re: New Orleans, William
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, John Blake
      • Re: New Orleans, kevin donnelly
      • Message not available
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Message not available
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Charles
      • Re: New Orleans, Michael J Davis
      • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: New Orleans, Alec Brady
  • Re: New Orleans, Quasin
• Test...., David Aldred
  • Re: Test...., David Aldred
    • Re: Test...., David Aldred
      • Final Test., David Aldred
      • Re: Final Test., Simon Crouch
      • Re: Final Test., David Aldred
      • Re: Test...., faithintheworld
      • Re: Test...., David Aldred
  • Re: Test...., Robert Marshall
    • Re: Test...., David Aldred
      • Re: Test...., Robert Marshall
      • Re: Test...., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Test...., Robert Marshall
      • Re: Test...., Kendall K . Down
• Re: the final night, Proshome
  • Re: the final night, Paul Roberts
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: the final night, Proshome
    • Re: the final night, Peter Lear
      • Re: the final night, Michael J Davis
• Re: Why do Muslims have stronger faith?, Alec Brady
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Why do Muslims have stronger faith?, Alec Brady
• Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
  • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", David Ould
    • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Richard Emblem
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", David Ould
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", David Ould
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Richard Emblem
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Proshome
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Simon Woods
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", David Ould
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", David Ould
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Pete Broadbent
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Simon Woods
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Simon Woods
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Robert Marshall
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Message not available
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Message not available
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Message not available
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Nick Milton
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Simon Woods
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Quasin
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Quasin
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Tom Higgins
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Pete Broadbent
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Paul Roberts
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Quasin
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Michael J Davis
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Quasin
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Brother Roger's Funeral Highlights "Ecumenism of Holiness", Alec Brady
• Re: The crescent and the star, Alec Brady
• Eyewitness of the Father and the Son [2], Richard
  • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and the Son [2], David Lane
    • Message not available
      • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and the Son [2], David Lane
  • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and the Son [2], Kendall K . Down
• Re: Monthly Stats - August 2005, Paul Roberts
  • Re: Monthly Stats - August 2005, David Ould
    • Re: Monthly Stats - August 2005, Paul Roberts
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Monthly Stats - August 2005, David Lane
    • Re: Monthly Stats - August 2005, Quasin
• What is it about Sectarians?, Michael J Davis
  • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Richard Emblem
    • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Peter R
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Peter R
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Sam Wilson
  • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, marcandmia
    • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Paul Roberts
    • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Alec Brady
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, marcandmia
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Alec Brady
    • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, David Ould
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, sarban
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, David Ould
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Michael J Davis
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: What is it about Sectarians?, Michael J Davis
• [prayer] prayer request, Paul Dean
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Paul Roberts
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, David Ould
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Kendall K . Down
    • [prayer] Re: prayer request, Paul Dean
      • Re: [prayer] Re: prayer request, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: [prayer] Re: prayer request, Quasin
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Richard Emblem
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Quasin
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Nick Milton
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Michael Falconer
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Michael J Davis
  • Re: [prayer] prayer request, Jo Bennett
• Eyewitness of the Father and Son [1], Richard
  • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and Son [1], David Lane
    • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and Son [1], Richard
      • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and Son [1], David Lane
      • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and Son [1], Richard
  • Re: Eyewitness of the Father and Son [1], Kendall K. Down
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Eyewitness of the Father and Son [1], Richard
• Re: Hell, Quasin
  • Re: Hell, Kendall K. Down
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
    • Re: Hell, David Ould
      • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
  • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
    • Re: Hell, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
  • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
    • Re: Hell, Daveytoo
      • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
      • Re: Hell, William
      • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
      • Re: Hell, William
      • Re: Hell, Daveytoo
      • Re: Hell, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
  • Re: Hell, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Hell, William
      • Re: Hell, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Hell, William
      • Re: Hell, Michael J Davis
      • Message not available
      • Re: Hell, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Hell, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Hell, William
      • Re: Hell, Peter Lear
      • Re: Hell, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Hell, Peter Lear
      • Re: Hell, William
  • Re: Hell, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Hell, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: Hell, Alec Brady
  • Hell, John Blake
    • Re: Hell, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Hell, Quasin
• Doubting Castle, marcandmia
  • Re: Doubting Castle, Michael Falconer
• leviticus and the day of atonement, marcandmia
• the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
  • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Nicholas Young
    • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Nicholas Young
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Michael J Davis
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Nicholas Young
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Michael J Davis
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Michael J Davis
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Nicholas Young
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Michael J Davis
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Robert Marshall
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Michael J Davis
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
    • Message not available
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Nicholas Young
      • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
  • Re: the chronology of the 70 week prophecy, marcandmia
• Re: dear uk.religion.christian readers, Michael J Davis
  • Re: dear uk.religion.christian readers, Prai Jei
  • Re: dear uk.religion.christian readers, Patrick Herring
• Re: Did Brother Roger die because of God's vengence for expelling that lady from the church? NOT A TROLL., Richard Emblem
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Did Brother Roger die because of God's vengence for expelling that lady from the church? NOT A TROLL., Richard Emblem
• Re: What are evangelists neglecting the Bible?, Paul Dean
• Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, John Fricis Ievins
  • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, David Ould
    • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, John Fricis Ievins
      • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, Quasin
      • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, David Ould
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, David Ould
  • Re: Christians can stop the War in the Middle East, Alec Brady
• Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, David Lane
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Neil Davey
    • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Philip Gardner
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Neil Davey
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Kim Tame
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, David Lane
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, David Lane
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Neil Davey
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Rhiannon Macfie Miller
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Alec Brady
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Neil Davey
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Michael J Davis
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Michael J Davis
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Rhiannon Macfie Miller
      • Message not available
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Michael J Davis
      • Message not available
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Rhiannon Macfie Miller
      • Message not available
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Kim Tame
      • Re: semi-afk-ish for a while, Neil Davey
• Re: Prayers for New Orleans, David Lane
  • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, steven
    • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Peter R
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Peter R
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Peter R
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, David Lane
  • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Quasin
    • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Quasin
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Nick Milton
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Emma Pease
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, sarban
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Daveytoo
      • Autism/psychopathy (was: Prayers for New Orleans), Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Ian Smith
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, sarban
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Alec Brady
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, steven
      • Message not available
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Kim Tame
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Alec Brady
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, David Ould
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, sarban
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Alec Brady
      • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Sam Wilson
  • Re: Prayers for New Orleans, Gordon Hudson
• Re: grr...., faithintheworld
  • Re: grr...., Kendall K. Down
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: grr...., David Lane
    • Re: grr...., Robert Marshall
  • Re: grr...., Neil Davey
• Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Daveytoo
  • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Tweetie Pooh
    • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, David Lane
  • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Quasin
  • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
    • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
    • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Philip Gardner
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Gordon Hudson
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Quasin
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Daveytoo
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, David Lane
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, David Lane
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Daveytoo
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Quasin
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, David Lane
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Richard Emblem
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Alpha course - speaking in tongues, Gordon Hudson
• Re: When to read Paul "within context" and when not ?, sarban
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: When to read Paul "within context" and when not ?, David Lane
  • Re: When to read Paul "within context" and when not ?, Quasin
  • Re: When to read Paul "within context" and when not ?, Paul Dean
  • Re: When to read Paul "within context" and when not ?, David Ould
  • Re: When to read Paul "within context" and when not ?, Mitch B
  • Re: When to read Paul "within context" and when not ?, Paul Roberts
• Re: God and Lord, David Lane
  • Re: God and Lord, faithintheworld
    • Re: God and Lord, David Lane
      • Re: God and Lord, Richard
• Re: Theism and Deism (was Plague), Kendall K. Down
  • Re: Theism and Deism (was Plague), Quasin
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Theism and Deism (was Plague), Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Theism and Deism (was Plague), Michael J Davis
      • Re: Theism and Deism (was Plague), Gareth McCaughan
• Re: no job - it gets worse.., Kendall K. Down
  • Re: no job - it gets worse.., Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: no job - it gets worse.., Kendall K . Down
      • Re: no job - it gets worse.., Quasin
      • Re: no job - it gets worse.., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: no job - it gets worse.., Michael J Davis
  • Re: no job - it gets worse.., Alec Brady
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: no job - it gets worse.., William
• Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Matthew 14, Quasin
    • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Quasin
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Quasin
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: Matthew 14, Quasin
  • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K. Down
    • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Quasin
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Matthew 14, Quasin
      • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Matthew 14, Quasin
      • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
  • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
    • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Paul Roberts
      • Re: Matthew 14, Nick Milton
      • Re: Matthew 14, me2s
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Matthew 14, Alec Brady
      • Message not available
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Andrew3637
      • Re: Matthew 14, William
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Tom Higgins
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Matthew 14, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Matthew 14, Nick Milton
  • Re: Matthew 14, Alec Brady
  • Re: Matthew 14, Alec Brady
  • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
    • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, faithintheworld
      • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: Matthew 14, David Ould
      • Re: Matthew 14, Michael J Davis
      • Re: Matthew 14, Kendall K . Down
• Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Kendall K . Down
  • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Nick Milton
    • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Kendall K . Down
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Nick Milton
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Nick Milton
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., kevin donnelly
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Alec Brady
  • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Alec Brady
    • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Kendall K. Down
  • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Alec Brady
    • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Tom Higgins
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Alec Brady
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Tom Higgins
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Quasin
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Tom Higgins
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Quasin
  • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Michael J Davis
    • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Michael J Davis
      • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: A Question of Voluntary Excommunication., Tom Higgins
• Re: What I will not worship, Albatros
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: What I will not worship, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: What I will not worship, Daveytoo
    • Re: What I will not worship, Quasin
      • Re: What I will not worship, Daveytoo
      • Re: What I will not worship, David Lane
      • Re: What I will not worship, Quasin
      • Re: What I will not worship, Michael J Davis
      • Re: What I will not worship, Daveytoo
  • Re: What I will not worship, Quasin
    • Re: What I will not worship, David Lane
    • Re: What I will not worship, Michael J Davis
      • Re: What I will not worship, David Ould
      • Re: What I will not worship, David Lane
  • Re: What I will not worship, David Lane
  • Re: What I will not worship, Peter R
  • Re: What I will not worship, Nick Milton
• Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Nick Milton
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Nick Milton
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Aldred
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Q
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Nicholas Young
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kim Tame
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Dave Shield
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, joerevskelton
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, joerevskelton
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Trevor Jenkins
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Dave Shield
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Trevor Jenkins
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Dean
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, faithintheworld
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tony Gillam
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, faithintheworld
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Nick Milton
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tony Gillam
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, faithintheworld
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Weekly uk.r.c thread summary, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Weekly uk.r.c thread summary, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: Weekly uk.r.c thread summary, Robert Marshall
      • Re: Weekly uk.r.c thread summary, Richard Emblem
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kim Tame
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kim Tame
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kim Tame
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Dean
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, William
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Peter R
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Peter R
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, David Ould
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Peter R
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Peter R
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Alec Brady
      • Message not available
      • Re: Predestination and Free Will, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Dean
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Dean
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Dean
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Dean
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Dean
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Message not available
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tony Gillam
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Sam Wilson
      • Message not available
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Message not available
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, moderator for uk.religion.christian
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, moderator for uk.religion.christian
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, moderator for uk.religion.christian
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, moderator for uk.religion.christian
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, moderator for uk.religion.christian
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • John 6:44 -- was Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Tom Higgins
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K. Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kim Tame
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kim Tame
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Michael J Davis
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Jonathan Wheeler
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Quasin
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Richard Dudley
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Kendall K . Down
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Robert Marshall
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Paul Roberts
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Alec Brady
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Gareth McCaughan
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, William
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
    • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, David Ould
      • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships, Peter R