Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
peacegirl continually insists that she's open to critiques, and won't assume that disagreement means a lack of understanding.
And yet every time she is confronted with criticism or disagreement, she implies or outright accuses the other person of not having read or not having understood the Book.
She talks a good game about being open to the notion that not everything in the book is right, but it's obvious that when she says this it's a lie. Maybe it's only self-deception. Maybe she believes her own lies, but either way, we know that she is dogmatic and refuses to realistically consider that her dad's ideas are flawed.
|
Erimir, I've heard this same refrain over and over, and it's really getting old. An observation can be evidence of truth, and it can be without flaw. Why do you think he harped on this in the introduction? He knew what he was up against. |
What does your response have to do with what I said?
I have
observed that in practically every case, when someone criticizes or disagrees with your dad, you suggest that they haven't understood the book, or they're close-minded or that they didn't read the relevant sections.
You don't provide new arguments, you don't provide evidence, you don't refute the evidence that others have put forth (about sight, or whatever). You just say that they don't understand or don't want to. Or even more pathetically, you say that while that might be, say, the scientific model, it's still possible that your dad is right.
That's dogmatic behavior. You are unwilling to reconsider these ideas, you are convinced 100% that they are true, and nothing that anyone says here is going to convince you otherwise.
It is you who is close-minded.