Paul propositions: "Is it REALLY because you think I'm not being honest with my inquiry? or: Is it because it's too difficult a question to answer? Is it because you don't really know? Is it because you secretly don't believe it? Is it because you fear that if you lay it down it will sound insignificant? is it because, as a nasty non-believer, I don't deserve to know?" _____ Back to my feel-free-to-have-emotions thesis. By trying to frame an emotional experience in intellectual terms, Paul is attacking the emotional significance of the religious experience. C'mon guy. Church is one of the few places where people can bump and grind without guilt. (See Erin's description.) Now you are asking them to account for that experience in purely intellectual terms. Sorta like somebody on a strict Pritikin diet who is allowed to have one cookie--one measly cookie for chrissakes!--and then some diet Nazi comes in and gives them a hard time for having it, wants to stand over their shoulder watching them consume it, lecturing all the while that eating that cookie is irrational "because why would you want something that's bad for you?" No wonder AK-47s are legal. If we lived in a healthy culture where wide-ranging emotional expression was valid for mature adults, all this sacred therapy wouldn't be so urgent. But we've all been conditioned into living as emotional pinchpennies (hence booze, drug, and church fetishes). We've all been conditioned to display shopping emotions only, in part a protection against the grisly things done to us and in our name, so the hallelujahs have to multitask for us. Poor us! People standing right beside us, but we can only get ecstatic about our imaginary Friend. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html