On Apr 20, 3:55=A0pm, Rod <icom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
> =A0 =A0No David, you are wrong about me baiting you. My purpose in
asking =
is
> to understand the basic relation****p between your topics and quakerism,
> and there are times when there is NO legitimate relation****p. I'm under
> no obligation to agree with you but there may be times that I will.
>
> =A0 =A0If you must agree with kelly, agree because it's your choice to
do
> so. It's far better to be deceived by her than to be like
> her...seriously, you're playing kiss and tell with the devil. This Kelly
> is much more evil than you will ever be willing to comprehend, and I say
> this from the perspective that believes their is NO god, that isn't to
> say that evil doesn't exist, or good either......You've been warned....
> I've done all I'm going to do to alert you. The fall is on you......
>...
I am not going to arbitrate between you and Kelly; I've been burned
by both of you in the past.
One main key to your concern to understand the basic relation****p
between my topics and quakerism is George Fox. He is more
old-fa****oned than you could possibly imagine but then again, so
am I.
Then again, I champion Joel Osteen and Marianne Williamson as
spiritual teachers for the m*****. I leave it to you to discover the
points of contact between their insights and quakerism. It is
possible that for you quakerism should not primarily be a book
learning experience - rather, you should attend a few Meetings
for Wor****p and interact with flesh and blood people face to face.
=2E..
David Christainsen
|
