To: Dayuhan who wrote (24014 ) 7/30/1998 11:47:00 AM From: George S. Montgomery Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
Dear Steven: I expose my ignorance with no, not little, shame. Your Luzon "pagan" post was a wowwer for me. First) It expressed feelings so identical to mine, I kept nodding and yessing and saying to myself that I have to convey wow to this guy, Steven. (Then I traced it back through Barrett, and found that Barrett had linked it to me, gsm. And was I thrilled? You bet!) Second) You centered your anecdote on pagans. I had done a, what I now realize was dumb, carping post to Chrissy on Pagans. And (how's this for no shame?), because of the beauty of your reported events, I looked up "pagan" - which I should have done long before attacking it in a message to Chrissy. Found it to be either polytheists, such as in ancient Rome or current 'primatives.' Or to be abstainers of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim beliefs. So, your use of 'pagan' was authenticated, and my previous understanding of it in the dark. I hope CGB reads this post and accepts it as an apology for my stupid "pagan" post to her. I now understand her definition of self to mean that she abhors Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - or it means that she is polytheistic to boot. Does the specific elimination the three religions based on the Old Testament leave the door open for highly populated Eastern Practices? I gather, from your communication, that it leaves the door open for local environmental elements. Is "pagan" a secular word? Limited to use by our Western Culture? I hope you will not, as an individual lately did, take this post as a jab! I am seriously trying to conceptualize "pagan." Would you be kind enough to respond - and help get me further away from dumb-dumb, where I now sit? george