Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target= The server is probably not started.

I was describing Gandhi the way he saw himself, not the way
anyone else has. If Gandhi was following the truth, the Truth would
set him free. God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.
I refuse to tell God what He can and can't do, nor to limit Him to
the windowless box of the written word, however He has inspired it.
You are free to do as you wish.
-----Original Message-----
From: William Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The fundamentalism Problem

I'm sorry to bring this up, Peter, but Gandhi would not be in the same group as Jesus, because Jesus' statement was exclusive, so accepting Jesus AND anything else is a contradiction of his statement. Just thought I might mention that. Aside from his error, Gandhi was a very honorable man.

>>> [log in to unmask] 02/26/04 05:04PM >>>
That certainly is a way to take it. It needn't be taken that way,
but by some Christians it probably would. I don't know that a
Platonist would of necessity. Jesus did say "I am the Way, the Truth
and the Life." People following the truth of their lives may well
be in line with what Jesus was referring to without knowing it by
those terms. It could still be the Truth. The universality of this
reality is exemplified by people like Gandhi who found perfect
compatbility between his beliefs and others.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Carless [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 1:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The fundamentalism Problem

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:03:54PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
> George Carless wrote:
> >
> > > The truth is NOBODY'S possession nor can it be reduced to mere
> > > arrangements of sound or print. It always has been and continues to be
> > > mystery.
> >
> > In other words, then, the 'truth' cannot be defined, understood,
appreciated, dealt with in human
> > terms, or supported by logic.  And lo, we're back to arbitrary mysticism
whose only justification
> > is, by definition, itself.

I'll just point out that I interpreted Peter's "truth" to mean "the meaning
of everything", and by
that, "God"; if I misunderstood him, then I apologise.  I had bloodwork done
today and my brain's
a little shaky.  Shakier than usual, even.