David wrote:
> On Apr 20, 3:55 pm, Rod <icom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> ...
>> No 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.
>>
>> If 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 masses. 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.
>
> ...
>
> David Christainsen
>
>
>
That is correct.You are not going to. So long David.
Plonk
|
