Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00422)

Keith wrote:

>Keith:  Dear Kym:  I am confused by this post and you are probably by most of
>mine.  Why did the women affect Buddha's religion enduring?  I assume you
are of
>the female persuasion as I am, but you probably have female genitalia which I
>don't.  But what differences does that make.  Spirituality doen't need
genetalia
>to endure or even be COOL!

Dear Keith,

Actually, the reason I posted the "post" was not about women at all - it was
more about how people can say "dumb things" - ex: Buddhism will perish since
women stuck their nose in it (which it didn't); people can say things that
hurt people's feelings, ex: Buddha hurting women's feelings by refusing to
speak to or listen to them; and on and on - and still not be a "mud-slinger."

I took Liesel to be saying the theos-l was becoming un-"spiritual" because
of some sniping, sarcasm, and loud and bold skepticism (again, my  personal
interpretation of her post) - so I put a story up about Buddha - a very
spiritual human being - caught in the act of. . .well. . .acting like one of us.

I definitely understand why Liesel might feel that theos-l periodically, or
more than periodically, "lowers" itself - it's just that I think that's
almost a necessary part of any kind of valid discussion. . .and well,
heckaroni!, sometimes it's just plain fun. . .

By the way, regarding your posts - confused? Occasionally, yes, but being
confused is fun too.  Art House managed to express my feelings toward your
posts quite well :-)

Kym