Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
YOU, LADYSHEA, are doing a disservice to mankind because YOU are claiming ownership of what you are not being privy to. Where in the world Lady do you come off being God? I'm being serious. Tell me Ladyshea where your scientific investigation usurps the claim that God is in charge, or the claim that completely obliterates the proof that God does not exist (which He does), not in the usual sense but in the sense of there being a divine order to this world. Explain it to me, would you Lady, since you are the Queen of all truth?
|
 Well done Shea! I thought I was doing well, getting her to call the book "divine knowledge" but this is much, much better.
By the way, is anyone else noticing that everyone has to be humble, and that questioning the Holy Book is per definition arrogance? How dare you think you know better than Prophet Lessans! All you people will feel really sorry after you are dead! The petty cry of the small-minded religious fanatic through the ages. |
I have never told people not to question. Why do you think I'm here? It's about how one expresses himself, which lately is just filled with knocks and put downs. Half of this thread is filled with this vitriol. If I have a hard time responding to these posts, it's because of your arrogant tone. You then have the nerve to imply that it is me with small-minded religious mind?  Boringgggggg |
But every time someone disagrees, they have not understood. Continuing to disagree means you are a) dumb b) Biased or c) malicious. It is not possible, according to you, to disagree with the book and be correct, even when he says things like "There are no afferent nerve-endings in the eye" which is obviously incorrect.
You need to think I have some other motive to disagree with the book: it keeps you from having to actually face the fact that your father was a well-meaning but rather dim person who made himself look rather silly by blowing his own trumpet far to much in his deeply confused book.
The reason I enjoy this discussion is because he was such a pompous ass (please note I am speaking of him as a writer only) and that you are so dishonest in your defence of him. The both of you are so disdainful of anyone else's opinion despite being ludicrously ill-informed that it becomes incredibly funny to have this discussion.
Take, for instance, the marvellous sight debacle. I have already provided you a means to slightly alter the book, remove all the idiocy,
and yet retain all the elements that are required to make the point your father was trying to make. There is no
need to reinvent sight just to account for the fact that beauty is a cultural norm rather than a real, tangible thing. These are all very well-established ideas. Nor is it required to get the point across that the future and the past have no tangible existence, which I think you said is required for his case for reincarnation.
But I guess that once you start thinking like that, the floodgates open and you start to realize that he never even noticed the enormous holes in his idea.
I notice that in all this time, you have not once responded to the elephant in the room:
He said the work was a step-by-step logical process where each step was as undeniable as 1 + 1 = 2.
But then he did not include any evidence, any reason to believe, that conscience works the way he said.
Was he lying, or did he just not notice?