From: Reed Konsler <email@example.com> Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 10:44 AM
>David, I think you're playing Devil's advocate with me. I don't
>understand how you can describe Richard recent posts, or mine,
>as "coy and evasisve". We have both been direct, conscientious,
Sorry, I should have been clear I was not talking about you. As for Richard, have you read his messages? I can only assume you have not, since he pretty much implicitly conceded the point when he replied to the charge of being coy and evasive with a zen story (which I enjoyed and am still mining for meaning).
>Let's do a thought experiment instead of telling each other where
>we are in the abstract. If an aquantiance of yours was a devout
>Catholic, into the ritual, and seemed otherwise happy and effective
>in their lives would you feel and imperative to disabuse them of
>their delusions? Can you imagine a congregation of believers
I do have such a friend, and feel no need to disabuse them of their beliefs.
>which you could share a ritual with, contacting them at a human
>level, without needing to believe as they do or to convert them
>to your way of thinking? Could you sit through a sermon and
Yes, I have attended religious weddings.
>feel refreshed in the meaning you were able to take away from
>it without concerning yourself about what everyone else in the
>room *really* thought was *true*.
Actually I tend to overanalyze sermons, looking for logical inconsistencies, etc. but I usually do that in order to stay awake :-)
>If you could do these things, then we are in the same place. But
>many of the people here cannot do these things. <Reason> will
>not let them share themeselves with anyone.
I'm not sure why you say that about reason. Isn't being reasonable acting in a manner that is logically consistent with one's goals?