"who your Oaths give access over" vs "right hand possess"

[LadyForCamus]

Nothing from within your book is evidence.  You need to accept that.  You DO accept that, which is why you have resorted to appeals to magic. So, why do you keep insisting it’s so?

I think I've observed the magic covering the Quran by observation of most humans and how they perceive clear words that by norms of language mean something but is butchered to mean something entirely different.

It's not that Muslims don't want to understand, it's that they thought their would not be an intense trial, so they became blind and deaf as a result.

The trial - the suggestions and locks and knots and sorcery - this is true. And I've proven it by showing how words by norms of language form a clear meaning, but that in not just one instance, but so many, the flow is cut off, butchered, and people are mind fucked to only see the worst interpretation as the possible one.

You tell me how psychological bias would do that. It doesn't. None of the psychological bias naturalism wise can account for it.

4:59 despite our hadiths arguing by context of flow of the verses before,  Shiites and their scholars, DO NOT, and they argue instead by pure philosophical grounds that those in authority have to be infallible.  They don't even see the context despite so many authenticated hadiths that they have that argue by context.

Something is wrong. Very wrong with all this.

And you have to look at it straight and begin to fight it noble Lady.

Naturalism wise, nothing can account for this.

MK, do you realize that we can use magic to justify literally any claim we want to believe in? I can just as easily say that the reason you don’t accept Christianity as true is because dark magic is making you falsely see the Quran as truth, and preventing you from seeing the true light of Christ. You have no way of proving me wrong, after all. What does it tell you about the reliability of a method, or the validity of a reason, if two people can use the exact same reason (magic), and arrive at two different conclusions?  Two conclusions that are mutually exclusive, no less.