>To put more specifically what I think Clare was implying - Do we *need*
>to distinguish 'chemically-induced states' from 'genuine experiences of >divinity'? Or might experiences sometimes be both chemically induced >(externally or internally) and at the same time genuine experiences of >divinity. Why posit the question as either/or when it may (at least in >some cases) be both/and? Throwing in another link (or kink). What do we do when our theology of "sacrament" says that we have a real experience /encounter with the divine whether we feel anything - chemically induced or transcendentally inspired, or feel (experience) nothing at all except a "cold, impersonal" rite. Peace, Rob -- Robert & Barbara Dummermuth Uniting Church in Australia Esperance / West Nullarbor Patrol 18 Hicks Street, Esperance, 6450 tel 08 9071 1184 fax 08 9071 5814 mobile 0428 532 304 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
