> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Actually, it's more like calling Jesus'
> > >teachings 'Paul-anity'...<innocent grin>
[Huh, missed this the first time 'round...I actually
was calling _Christianity_ 'Paulanity,' not the
actual-as-far-as-we-know-which-isn't-very teachings of
Jesus.]
> ><sigh-and-shaking-of-head>
> >Traaaa-vis, puleeze read all of a thread if'n yer
> >gonna make clever remarks about it...I already
> >conceded that Dan was correct about not having
> >Paul-anity (of course, he also agrees that we don't
> >have Jesus-anity either)...
> On Sunday, June 20th you wrote the following in
> response to Dan:
>
> "I stand by my statement that what is and has been
> practiced/believed is far more Paul-anity than
> Jesus-anity." (I confess, I paraphrased you in my
> last post.)
<grin> So I did! But since then I've conceded -
twice - that, as at least some of the writings
attributed to Paul are likely not, and because of the
massive reconstruction of Christianity over the
ensuing centuries, 'Paul-anity' is also not an
applicable title for the religion. (Although I didn't
spell it out as concisely as I just did.)
> Lets make a deal shall we? I'll make it a point to
> read all of a thread. But
> on one condition - only if I'm gonna make clever
> remarks about it. You on
> the other hand shall make it a point to stand by
> your statements, even after
> you have already stood by them. Deal?
Heck no! While I would never ask you to to stop
making clever remarks, if you can <laugh,
duck-and-run>, I do reserve the right to be persuaded
by cogent debate to a differing viewpoint. ;)
> Seriously though, I know that a change of opinion
> can easily come to someone
> in the wake of a good debate if that someone
> actually lives up to the
> definition of communication (which is a two-way
> street), and if the other
> person has a solid argument which cannot be ignored
> with a straight face. So you aren't to blame, Dan
is.
Umm, I wouldn't say "easily"... I can be _very_
stubborn without even half-trying. I won't pretend
that I *like* having to retract an opinion, so admit
that it might be done a tad ungraciously...
<serious> In another thread cross-over (from Dan's
Hypocrisy IIRC), the concept of karmic slappage
applies: I made an 'absolute' statement in an area in
which I am at best a dilettante, and whose premise
affects many many people...I got smacked for it.
OTOH, "I am a Heretic Lutheran Deist" is not risking
karmic correction because I am intimately acquainted
with the subject, and the outcome affects but one.
<sniplet>
> Therefore, by
> the literal translation of you telling me to read
> the entire thread (which
> is some VERY good advice), I'm guilty as charged. As
> for what that same
> sentence implied, well, you can't blame me for
> having my own opinion now can you?
> Take that!<smile>
Not blame, of course...tease mercilessly - absolutely!
Debbi
Hello Kitty Maru ;)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
