Religious Nonsense

These quotes occur on page twenty-five.

On page twenty-three:

On this occasion, I would agree Musika is wrong that Write4U "cited Hitler ... as some sort of model for applying scripture"; to the other, the only reason I would is because I think W4U's application in #456↑ is non sequitur, and therefore meaningless.

If #456 wasn't non sequitur, then Musika has a point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No he doesn't.
I'm not sure what's going wrong here, but I suspect that you are crediting Musika with what he would have meant if he had made sense, combined the right words in the proper way to make the point you think he should have made.

What he actually posted, read carefully, is simply false. Completely wrong. W4 did not cite Hitler as a model for applying scripture - not even big S Scripture, not even "justifying by" rather than "applying", not even "present" for "cite", not even "example of" rather than "model for", nothing even close.

Musika is not posting honestly or in good faith. Indulgence of the fogsmithing involved in his little project here is not warranted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just hopelessly contrarian.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So why are you trying to rehabilitate Musika's dishonest, bad faith, bs? You could disparage and insult W4 on honest grounds, after all, without joining the fundies in the snakepit.

 

And that's your massive obstruction to discourse and perspective. Despite an ability to approach topics that obviously require a bit of nous, it is always a case of : Identity politics first. Content second.

There is a social phenomena where absolute extremes display an almost identical quality. You exemplify it perfectly with your behaviour on this site.
Fundie is as Fundie does.

 

TY.
In my experience, you cannot claim to be a "chosen one" by a divine power unless you believe in a higher unknowable but divine spiritual power.
You kind of have to be a believer, to see yourself in such a position, no?

Unless you wish to submit to the power of secular Democracy (a form of God also).

An atheist could never claim such a thing without betraying his entire world-view and moral principles. I am not saying there are no egocentric or immoral atheists, but never for believing in a third party metaphysical participant in their lives. Vanity rests on Belief .

Now if someone were to ask if God is a verb for an impersonal and implacable process, I would say that should not automatically require belief in a sentient and motivated "director", named God (noun). One can very satisfactorily acknowledge "the way the world works", without needing to say "Praise the Lord" afterward.

 

///
You must be talking to yourself.

<>

 

Why do you go out of your way to demonstrate my point?

 

OK.

OK.

So? What does any of this have to do with my statement regarding context?

I didn’t bring up the issue of ramming things into holes, I merely responded in kind to it.

I’d rather not have to respond to such pointless content, but that’s what this particular poster habitually dishes.

 

It puts you in the snake pit.

 

Wow....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Saw myself back when I was about eight.

 

Your misuse of the term "identity politics", your vaguely meaningless throwins of "discourse", "perspective", and "obstruction", and the wrong preposition "to", creates a wordfog. Your posting there doesn't actually mean anything. It's impossible to tell what you are talking about.

But you have included - along with the insult agenda - a separate claim: You attempt to claim content for your own posting. It is as empty as the rest.

You can't accurately describe that behavior, or identify its similarities with whatever you are referring to as "Fundie", or specify the scale on which it occupies an extreme.
The word "phenomena" is plural where singular is indicated, "quality" is probably misused and certainly singular where plural is indicated, "absolute" is misused without hope of rehab, and extremes themselves don't "display" in that sense.
That is, you have typed a string of words that read carefully doesn't actually mean anything. But it serves as innuendo, implying disparagement for cause without risking accountability.

You don't have a point. You have a dislike of shallow, smart-alec, or arrogant criticism of the predominant Abrahamic theistic beliefs sincerely held, and that dislike has crippled your reading comprehension on top of saddling you with mistaken presumptions.

Musika is posting dishonestly and in bad faith, here. Quit trying to rescue that shit. It's not as aligned with your take on the smartalecs as you seem to want it to be.

 

Do you know any "abrahamics" that you do like?
Or, conversely, do you know any persons that you don't like who are not "abrahamics"?

 

Yes or no.

My friends Djugal and Nihar are both Hindu. Neko and Noriyasu are both Buddhist. Well, Neko might be Shinto, but who cares except his ancestors, right?

Most everyone I know in America is of a an Abrahamic religion.

Those folks I don't like, I don't give much of a damn what religion they do or don't practice. What's your point?

 

I suspect Iceaura suffers from Abrahamicolism.
It was slightly unusual at first. Then it was humorous. Then perplexing. Now concerning.
He may have to undergo a 12 step program, but if what you say is true, such treatment may not be available in the USA.

 

Thankfully I don't see his shitposts any longer. "Ignore" is a nice thing...

 

Almost everybody I know is a Christian.

 

Answers like that are part of why you fail.

Still, it must be miserable to be surrounded by so many people you have no respect for.

Poor you.

Or, did you mean something else?

 

Tiassa, I don't know about you, but I respect people who demonstrate that they deserve respect, not given because of a label.

What was it that Dr. King said?