You asked what I meant by my sentence and I clarified it.
For example, I personally find the idea of transubstantiation weird. To my mind, that does not provide evidence that all religion is wrong, just that maybe strict Catholicism maybe isn’t for me.
And now I’ve answered it twice, from two different angles. You’re going to have to rephrase your question if you’re not satisfied at this point, because I don’t know what you want from me.
Not really. It’s an observation that most religions have some dogmatic and scriptural aspects that can be seen as either absurd or abhorrent.
Most large religions have been co-opted at some point in history by powerful people to do some terrible things.
If you were anti-religion, there’s a lot of things to take shots at.
Explain how what i said was wrong? I understand you disagree, but none of the rest of your comment explains why.
You asked what I meant by my sentence and I clarified it.
For example, I personally find the idea of transubstantiation weird. To my mind, that does not provide evidence that all religion is wrong, just that maybe strict Catholicism maybe isn’t for me.
I did not ask what you meant in your sentence.
You kinda did.
“Is that a crazy way to phrase…”
And now I’ve answered it twice, from two different angles. You’re going to have to rephrase your question if you’re not satisfied at this point, because I don’t know what you want from me.
You’re misquoting me. I think if you read my comment you would find it easier to understand.
I’m going to congratulate you. It’s taken me several replies before realising that you’re a troll - you have gotten further than most.
Kudos.
Literally… just read the comment. It does not say what you just said it does…
Do you often assume people are out to get you instead of double checking if your assumption was correct?