[mftb]

From the linked post:

> I cheated a bit there, I admit. I changed one of the words. The name that the saint used in that passage was not ‘Ahriman’. It was ‘Antichrist.’

That's manipulation. That's gross. That's a shame. There are some interesting ideas in the post.

[sbaiddn]

Its creative license.

He's illustrating how a description of the Antichrist from over 100 years ago so neatly describes modern man's deity.

You clearly understood the parallel, for you felt manipulated. His manipulation is not only intentional, it is admitted by the author!

[mftb]

Manipulators frequently admit their manipulations, knowing that they work on you anyway. There's nothing novel there.

[zamnos]

Looks like it worked on you then. Good writing evokes feelings in its readers but as you've discovered, not all feelings feel good. Bad or good though, feelings make things stick. As you worship whichever deity you relate to (even if that deity is technology), you'll remember that passage for far longer than if that substitution literary device hadn't been used.

If it shook you up so much that you had to stop reading then it was quite successful.

[mftb]

I never said I stopped reading anything.