You're probably right, but I just replied to the list from which it came.>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:52:36 -0400> From: [email protected]> To:
[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Texascavers] Religion> CC:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]> >
Is this OT?> > > ---- Louise Power <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >
The Hyperdictionary defines "illusory" as:> > > > Deceiving, or tending of
deceive; fallacious; illusive; as,illusory promises or hopes.> > If the
religion fits...> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:00:03 -0700> From:
[email protected]> To: [email protected]> CC:
[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Religion> > Apparently,
Illusory are forms he does NOT agree with or practice. Nonillusory must be what
he agrees with...> Either way...it seems like a very unconscious worldview when
one must diss anothers religions or practices to appease the desire of thier
ego to be noticed.> > Sent from my iPhone> > On Jul 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM,
"William H. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:> > I think any worthwhile
form o religion should involve caves, but I am not clear on B Morgan's
distinction between "illusory" forms of religion and the non-illusory forms. If
the "forms" are written down in a book and a large church built, does this make
the forms less illusory? Please explain.> -- > William Hart Russell> 4806 Red
River Street> Austin, TX 78751> H: 512-453-4774 (messages)> CELL: 512-940-8336>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> Visit
our website: http://texascavers.com> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail:
[email protected]> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------> Visit
our website: http://texascavers.com> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail:
[email protected]> >
