Hate Speech In Religious Texts

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Um, ok.

Do you think either Mark or Seth is listening to the other?

[Mark Dreher]

Um, ok.

Do you think either Mark or Seth is listening to the other?

Ha ha that's funny.

No, Seth, ignores me.

We are not, old friends.

I is, "The Youth"

72 names, one, the main one, the "most commonly referred" name?

"The Youth".

The youth.

The kid.

What, the hell?

The Youth.

Well fuck me, why would they say that?

Because, "I live to a thousand"

But it only seems like

"I am 25".

Years old.

Perpetually.

http://angels.about.com/od/AngelsReligi ... tatron.htm

The Youth.

The kid

72 names

And this?

Is the most common one??

A 25 year old

Forever

The youth.

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyouth.html

[Mark Dreher]

Um, ok.

Do you think either Mark or Seth is listening to the other?

Now, my password, "what is it?"

You know it.

I never, in a million years, "thought I would give it out".

But I did.

It says, a lot.

What, does it say?

This hidden thing, no one, knew about? My password?

Is Metatron.

You know, I love you.

I love you.

Three, little words.

With, tremendous, effect.

Those, are the three words, we live for.

Someone, "who knows you", really knows you, says that.

Is all you need, to feel good.

Three, little words

Said

By the right person.

[pErvinalia]

What in God's (Mark's ) name are you going on about?

[Seth]

I believe them because their followers believe them. This is pretty simple stuff, Seth.

You are far more gullible and credulous than I ever thought you were. You're a second-hand religious zealot.

Huh?!? You're a fucking troll. Piss off.

You just said you're a believer in Christianity because somebody else believes somebody else knows what God wants.

It doesn't get any more credulous and gullible than that.

Of course actually you don't believe a word of it from anyone, as you have announced many times, and you're just using this argument as a stalking horse to allow you to bash Christianity. Everybody knows this. It's incredibly convenient for you to formulate Wayback Machine fallacies and fallacies of composition and probably a half-dozen other informal fallacies by trying to claim that God is X or did Y or has characteristics Z because somebody else (A) says that's the case. Of course any rational person would simply say "I have no credible evidence that A is an expert on the subject so his statements are nothing more than an argument from authority fallacy." As are your arguments. Arguments from authority fallacies that depend for their rational strength on the opinions of those who have no demonstrated scientific credibility as experts on the subject.

In other words, you're positing a classic and correct case of begging the question because you assume that the claims of religious authority regarding the nature or intentions of God are authoritative merely because they are religious authorities whom others follow. Completely circular argument.

Try again.

[Mark Dreher]

What in God's (Mark's ) name are you going on about?

Sweetie, I love you.

You wrote me, that letter, from the Russian gal, a beautiful letter.

The "I love you", letter.

I read it, because, it seems like, "I wrote it, about you".

I, could have wrote that letter.

i.e. "you are all, I think about".

Now, I don't know why, "I would be so infatuated, with you", that "I can't stop, thinking about you."

It's true, every second.

"That, you, are all I care about".

Now, I am either, an "infatuated puppy".

Or?

"You are all I live for".

I am a weird guy, on this planet.

The Shekinah says, "she sees no one, but me"

And I say

"I see no one, but you".

You, are all I care about.

And, my dear, "your body", that part?

Was an atheist.

For a long time.

Now surely, now, you know, "there is a Kingdom of God"?

You believe this.

But, "you're still, a bit, scared".

This guy, Tero, of whatever, the poster.

Look at his avatar.

His avatar, is, basically, "I'm scared".

The guy, basically, "looks like he is going to jump out of his skin".

He is scared.

I think, that is what atheism, is all about.

Fear, of God, the Shekinah.

I have, to reconcile that, "with the reality".

Humans, "do nothing, without poking"

Anything, you got to do?

God, "has got to scare, you into it".

That, even goes down, to basic stuff, "I don't want to get up, and go pee." You say.

Shekinah says, "YOUR BLADDER IS GOING TO BURST!!!", run!!

All half hysterical.

That's, how she works.

For everything.

Fear.

So, you must understand that.

But you also must understand

That they wont stand

Those lazy pigs

Without it.

You must, understand, "the Shekinah's dilemma".

1. No one, does nothing, "on their own".

Takes a lion tamer.

2, And no one "worships God", if left, "to their own devices".

No one, would.

Not one, person.

Would go to church

If the Shekinah

Did not drag them

People "don't love God".

They love freedom

"From God".

Because?

"God is a bitch".

With crude, methodologies.

Best to know.

[pErvinalia]

I believe them because their followers believe them. This is pretty simple stuff, Seth.

You are far more gullible and credulous than I ever thought you were. You're a second-hand religious zealot.

Huh?!? You're a fucking troll. Piss off.

You just said you're a believer in Christianity because somebody else believes somebody else knows what God wants.

What in the fuck is wrong with your head?!? I never said I am a believer in Christianity. I said the authorities of the Christian religion are the authorities of the religion, not you. How much more clearer can I be on this??

[Seth]

I believe them because their followers believe them. This is pretty simple stuff, Seth.

You are far more gullible and credulous than I ever thought you were. You're a second-hand religious zealot.

Huh?!? You're a fucking troll. Piss off.

You just said you're a believer in Christianity because somebody else believes somebody else knows what God wants.

What in the fuck is wrong with your head?!? I never said I am a believer in Christianity. I said the authorities of the Christian religion are the authorities of the religion, not you. How much more clearer can I be on this??

You wrote, and I quote, "I believe them because their followers believe them."

Your mistake is in assuming that someone who is an "authority of the religion" actually knows anything factual about the subject. That's why it's called an "argument from authority fallacy" don't you see. You can't found an argument on a claim that what someone says about something is authoritative unless you can show that the particular authority being cited is in fact an authority on the subject.

You said you believe Christian religious authorities because their followers believe them. This is second-hand argument by authority fallacy.

In order for you to use religious authority as a legitimate authority in an argument you need to establish the objective facts that make that person a recognized authority, which is something neither you nor the "authorities" you cite can actually do. It's all hearsay and conjecture and you know it. In fact I've seen you maintain that religious authorities are delusional simpletons (I paraphrase) because they have no objective evidence that God even exists in the first place.

The original statement by you that tripped this particular trigger was "I don't say it's anything other than what the authoritative figures say it is. I.e. THEY are supposedly the voice of God, not some troll on the internet like you."

I simply pointed out that this is an irrational conclusion for you to make because of the possibility of error on the part of the "authoritative figures."

What you're trying to do is to dismiss the existence of God by putting the cart before the horse and claiming that because "authoritative figures" in the religion posit mutually exclusive attributes of God, God cannot therefore exist as described by these "authoritative figures."

But that's not how it works, in science or philosophy. The observations, notions and descriptions of God made by believers do not create God in that image, nor do they limit God to being as defined or described by these believers.

God is, if God exists, and the attributes of God are what they are, they are not what "authoritative figures" believe them to be.

The classic example of the flaw in your argument is the parable of the blind men and the elephant. I'll assume you know it and won't bother to repeat it here.

What these "authoritative figures" believe about God, and how they describe God, or how they document observations of what they believe are acts by God or instructions from God cannot be used in an argument by an Atheist (or anyone else) to bootstrap a claim that God does not or cannot exist or even that God has those attributes that you wish to attack. The reason is quite simple: God, if God exists, defines the universe. Man does not define God.

So any attack you might make with respect to attribute A, B or C as described by "authoritative figures" in the Christian religion fails on first principles because any rational person examining the evidence will simply conclude that there is no objective evidence upon which to draw a conclusion about those purported attributes, either positive or negative.

You want to bootstrap an attack on Christianity based on your analysis of the documents, claims and beliefs of Christian believers, whom you claim to "believe" for no better reason than that they make those claims and beliefs. Circular reasoning I'm afraid.

The only authority on God is God, if there is a God. Everything else is hearsay and conjecture.

[Mark Dreher]

You just said you're a believer in Christianity because somebody else believes somebody else knows what God wants.

It doesn't get any more credulous and gullible than that.

Of course actually you don't believe a word of it from anyone, as you have announced many times, and you're just using this argument as a stalking horse to allow you to bash Christianity. Everybody knows this. It's incredibly convenient for you to formulate Wayback Machine fallacies and fallacies of composition and probably a half-dozen other informal fallacies by trying to claim that God is X or did Y or has characteristics Z because somebody else (A) says that's the case. Of course any rational person would simply say "I have no credible evidence that A is an expert on the subject so his statements are nothing more than an argument from authority fallacy." As are your arguments. Arguments from authority fallacies that depend for their rational strength on the opinions of those who have no demonstrated scientific credibility as experts on the subject.

In other words, you're positing a classic and correct case of begging the question because you assume that the claims of religious authority regarding the nature or intentions of God are authoritative merely because they are religious authorities whom others follow. Completely circular argument.

Try again.

Wo, what atheist gobblegook.

You, "you have been corrupted".

Unless, you did a cut and paste?

Your brain?

Is mush.

Pure, and simple.

Your lucky, your heart, is smart enough, to tick

Because, it is on auto pilot.

You, "are going to hate me for a week", now, I can see it.

But, if that is not "a cut and paste?"

We, are in big trouble.

I can't beat that.

I concede.

That is brainwashing.

By Satan

Himself.

My God, "there is no human", even in there.

I can see, why the Shekinah's, soo upset.

We are going to lose.

I could never beat that

In a million

Years.

That is atheism.

And "you believe it".

Man, we are sunk.

You can't, talk that way, please, come on.

That, is a little discouraging.

[Mark Dreher]

What in the fuck is wrong with your head?!? I never said I am a believer in Christianity. I said the authorities of the Christian religion are the authorities of the religion, not you. How much more clearer can I be on this??

The authorities? My dear.

There is nothing

There is no one

In, the Kingdom of God, "but me".

One, entity.

Encompassing, God, Satan, and all the Angels.

Are we having a bad day, or something?

You know, at least, "I am something".

But, "I wouldn't shake the popes hand", for a million bucks.

If his entire entourage, went by?

I would not even turn my head.

There is nothing

Other than me.

Not one thing.

In the Kingdom of God

But me.

That's it.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not reading another long post of idiocy and/or trolling from you, Seth. It's not an argument from authority fallacy to say that Christians follow their leaders. IT'S A SIMPLE FUCKING STATEMENT OF FACT. Go troll someone else, you Fucking troll.

[Mark Dreher]

You wrote, and I quote, "I believe them because their followers believe them."

Your mistake is in assuming that someone who is an "authority of the religion" actually knows anything factual about the subject. That's why it's called an "argument from authority fallacy" don't you see. You can't found an argument on a claim that what someone says about something is authoritative unless you can show that the particular authority being cited is in fact an authority on the subject.

You said you believe Christian religious authorities because their followers believe them. This is second-hand argument by authority fallacy.

In order for you to use religious authority as a legitimate authority in an argument you need to establish the objective facts that make that person a recognized authority, which is something neither you nor the "authorities" you cite can actually do. It's all hearsay and conjecture and you know it. In fact I've seen you maintain that religious authorities are delusional simpletons (I paraphrase) because they have no objective evidence that God even exists in the first place.

The original statement by you that tripped this particular trigger was "I don't say it's anything other than what the authoritative figures say it is. I.e. THEY are supposedly the voice of God, not some troll on the internet like you."

I simply pointed out that this is an irrational conclusion for you to make because of the possibility of error on the part of the "authoritative figures."

What you're trying to do is to dismiss the existence of God by putting the cart before the horse and claiming that because "authoritative figures" in the religion posit mutually exclusive attributes of God, God cannot therefore exist as described by these "authoritative figures."

But that's not how it works, in science or philosophy. The observations, notions and descriptions of God made by believers do not create God in that image, nor do they limit God to being as defined or described by these believers.

God is, if God exists, and the attributes of God are what they are, they are not what "authoritative figures" believe them to be.

The classic example of the flaw in your argument is the parable of the blind men and the elephant. I'll assume you know it and won't bother to repeat it here.

What these "authoritative figures" believe about God, and how they describe God, or how they document observations of what they believe are acts by God or instructions from God cannot be used in an argument by an Atheist (or anyone else) to bootstrap a claim that God does not or cannot exist or even that God has those attributes that you wish to attack. The reason is quite simple: God, if God exists, defines the universe. Man does not define God.

So any attack you might make with respect to attribute A, B or C as described by "authoritative figures" in the Christian religion fails on first principles because any rational person examining the evidence will simply conclude that there is no objective evidence upon which to draw a conclusion about those purported attributes, either positive or negative.

You want to bootstrap an attack on Christianity based on your analysis of the documents, claims and beliefs of Christian believers, whom you claim to "believe" for no better reason than that they make those claims and beliefs. Circular reasoning I'm afraid.

The only authority on God is God, if there is a God. Everything else is hearsay and conjecture.

Well that was well written.

I hope, it's a cut a paste.

We, are a million miles, apart, we are.

Soo, can you imagine, of my goodness..

Holy smokers, holy smokers.

I see the problem.

Ya, OK I see it.

We are going to lose.

Oh my God.

I never, really thought that.

In the back, of my mind, I thought, it was impossible.

For the Shekinah, to lose.

But she is going to lose.

I really don't know, what to say.

That's mind boggling.

I've never seen the Shekinah lose.

I get it now.

The last apple

Is rotten

And the tree

Is now empty.

[Mark Dreher]

I'm not reading another long post of idiocy and/or trolling from you, Seth. It's not an argument from authority fallacy to say that Christians follow their leaders. IT'S A SIMPLE FUCKING STATEMENT OF FACT. Go troll someone else, you Fucking troll.

Can you be civil? And please, "just explain your concerns?"

God's messages, "rip your heart out", they are exhilarating.

That's why they're fun.

But, I only want to provoke you, enough, "to get your dander up".

To be engaging, and not boring.

Boring, is the worst.

And, I don't do that.

Good or bad, it won't be boring.

You know, "if a gal is not provoked, sufficiently", she gets melancholia.

i.e. "bored to tears".

You must, understand, my messages? Are "addicting".

But why? They press buttons.

Buttons, you didn't know you had.

Till I pressed them.

Keep pressing buttons?

It becomes, a tickle

And you like it.

[pErvinalia]

The main problem that Seth has (among all the host of problems he has), is that he mixes us religion with God. The two aren't synonymous. They are distinct things. Religion is an organisational structure, which Christianity being more organised than say Islam, given it has definitive heads of religion. If Christians commit atrocities at the behest of the leaders of religion, then it is absolutely correct to say that religion is a negative influence on their actions. Seth seems to think we are saying God was telling Christians to kill Muslims. As usual, Seth can't read for comprehension. We've been dealing with this problem with him for fucking years. He'll never change.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not reading another long post of idiocy and/or trolling from you, Seth. It's not an argument from authority fallacy to say that Christians follow their leaders. IT'S A SIMPLE FUCKING STATEMENT OF FACT. Go troll someone else, you Fucking troll.

Can you be civil? And please, "just explain your concerns?"

God's messages, "rip your heart out", they are exhilarating.

That's why they're fun.

But, I only want to provoke you, enough, "to get your dander up".

To be engaging, and not boring.

Boring, is the worst.

And, I don't do that.

Good or bad, it won't be boring.

You know, "if a gal is not provoked, sufficiently", she gets melancholia.

i.e. "bored to tears".

You must, understand, my messages? Are "addicting".

But why? They press buttons.

Buttons, you didn't know you had.

Till I pressed them.

Keep pressing buttons?

It becomes, a tickle

And you like it.

I'm not sure why you keep responding to my posts to others. Are you that hard up for conversation that you have to engage someone who thinks you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and basically has only been trolling you so far? Understand this: it's exceedingly unlikely you will have anything to say that would interest me to make the effort to interact with you intellectually. I barely interact with Seth intellectually (given it's a total waste of time), and he's levels above you in coherence and meaning.