I believe that
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 09 March 2004 17:57
Subject: Re: God & Religion
>a religion is a superstition with a theology
>
>which is, though glib, is not to put down religion at all
>
>it's an axis and i guess that the amount of thought is the determinant of
>position on that axis
>
>at one end are people thinking _God should do something about this_
>
>
>L
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrick McManus <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>;
>[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 09 March 2004 12:45
>Subject: Re: God & Religion
>
>
>>I spelt out my bets or is it spelled as a male witch :-) am interested in
>>the relation ship between superstition between superstition and religion
>>which impacts on poems here- as my son to me -(startling me somewhat) what
>>is the mission statement here ?
>>cheers Patrick at sea here drowning in academica
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:23 AM
>>Subject: Re: God & Religion
>>
>>
>>> thought it be like that
>>>
>>> it all seems to come down to hedging your bets and associated activities
>>>
>>> L
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Patrick McManus <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>;
>>> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: 09 March 2004 11:20
>>> Subject: Re: God & Religion
>>>
>>>
>>> >I like his cut
>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>> >From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:19 AM
>>> >Subject: Re: God & Religion
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> why?
>>> >>
>>> >> L
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Patrick McManus <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> To: Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>;
>>> >> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> Date: 09 March 2004 07:25
>>> >> Subject: Re: God & Religion
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >I'm with Mark on that
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
|