| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Spirits Book article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Explanation for criticism deletion edit
This part was deleted for inconsistent explanations. While obviously a second revision of a book should contain revision and increase (or reformulation), it is not true that the book suffered rephrasing on the Spirits messages.
Facts prove that who have written this criticism topic haven't read all books from Kardec, specially "Book on Mediums", thus being enable to create a consistent argument. Who can made a solid criticism without a deep research?
Given the fact that Allan Kardec received a huge amount of information from Spirits, it's understandable a second edition be much longer than the first.
About the Metempsicosis example exposed, this is a very inconsistent declaration, because "The Spirits' Book" never confirmed this theory, specially in the last revision; The Spiritist Doctrine in a very interconnected amount of information, and through the book, many declarations make clear that while the animals souls is a creation of God (like everything), the human souls is a more developed soul, having the quality of being able to discern between the Good and Evil, with cause knowledge, thus already having all the characteristic of a inteligent being, and inside the "Action-Reaction" law. This is the Spirits characteristics and what differ the humans from the animals souls. To finish, the Metempsicosis sample exposed is not only inconsistent, but senseless, given the fact that the understanding of the souls evolution and thus God, is the fundamental objective of the Spiritism—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.41.100 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-03T12:58:38 This comment was further edited by Jesvane and Sgodth
- I put that Criticism section only to ellicit debate over the topic. I would expect more people to contribute on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.243.63.134 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-07T14:10:13
- It's OK, and I put my reply to say what I think is incorrect about what was exposed... : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.163.147.252 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-10T15:32:25 Comment further edited by Jesvane
Expert Tag edit
It's not clear from this page what needs expert opinion. Please explain here or remove the tag. --217.204.163.50 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your opinion; the article is a consistent summary of the book, and with this expert tag added it seems like the article have inaccuracy entries. Gonna delete it. Sgodth 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)