Re: virus: Virus: Opinions?

B. Lane Robertson (metaphy@hotmail.com)
Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:56:29 PDT

I would suggest the religious fanaticist go beyond
the B of M and try to answer what the book says
about what came before or after the book... what is
suggested between the lines (such as WHY a son of
God, or WHAT kind of "god"). In this way, he would
be on a more even level with the comments made
"against" him. While it is true that the words of a
book (any book) can be used to back up the book--
and always "faithfully" reproduce what the book says
(and this might seem some sort of "proof" that the
words of the book are proof of the words of the
book)-- anyone would have trouble breaking an
adherent from talking in circles if this adherent
could get nothing more from the book than a
statement that others should "read the book".

For example: Mary had a little lamb. This is
obvious from the story "Mary Had a Little Lamb"
because it says so in the book. If Mary had not had
a little lamb there would be no book called "Mary
Had a Little Lamb" thus it is obvious that "its
fleece was white as snow" because otherwise it would
not be Mary's Lamb (this is the type of "logic" that
religious adherents espouse). Some counter logic
would be in questions like "Is there a person called
Mary?, "Do lambs have fleece as white as snow", "Who
wrote this story", "Why did they write this
story"... such questions cannot be answered by
referring to the words of the story!

B. Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
See who's chatting about this topic:
http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com