Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
11,095
edits
HPB-SB-1-136: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
{{Style P-No indent|''To the Editor of The Spiritual Scientist:''}} | {{Style P-No indent|''To the Editor of The Spiritual Scientist:''}} | ||
{{Style S-Small capitals|Dear Sir}}: — I have received your paper weekly for nearly a year. I at first thought it was wholly uncalled | {{Style S-Small capitals|Dear Sir}}: — I have received your paper weekly for nearly a year. I at first thought it was wholly uncalled for as there were a number of liberal papers in your city; besides, it appeared to me at first that you were attempting to expose and poll down a theory which to many was well established without offering a substitute, or in other words, you were attacking old established theories without advancing any theory of your own except to point out the faults of others. | ||
Allow me to say to you that my mind has undergone somewhat of a change in relation to your paper and the object you have in taking the course you do. If I am not wonderfully mistaken, your course is the only safe one we can follow to do honor to ourselves and justice to our friends, and if the honest investigator will thoroughly weigh all the evidence which he can gain of the different theories and doctrines of the day, I have no doubt he will come to the conclusion that you ate on the right track. What right have we to denounce the old theories of Calvinism, and call our friends and neighbors bigots and sectarians, when we ourselves have a theory which we claim infallible, and deny the right of investigation. If we call our friends superstitious for believing in some old worn-out theory for which they have no positive evidence, shall we allow ourselves to fall into the same mistake? | Allow me to say to you that my mind has undergone somewhat of a change in relation to your paper and the object you have in taking the course you do. If I am not wonderfully mistaken, your course is the only safe one we can follow to do honor to ourselves and justice to our friends, and if the honest investigator will thoroughly weigh all the evidence which he can gain of the different theories and doctrines of the day, I have no doubt he will come to the conclusion that you ate on the right track. What right have we to denounce the old theories of Calvinism, and call our friends and neighbors bigots and sectarians, when we ourselves have a theory which we claim infallible, and deny the right of investigation. If we call our friends superstitious for believing in some old worn-out theory for which they have no positive evidence, shall we allow ourselves to fall into the same mistake? | ||