clipka wrote:
> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is 
> based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any 
> statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other 
> is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is 
> crap"

His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for 
example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this 
among us, so he is wrong here, but I doubt he will admit this, since he 
will say: exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude 
from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of 
time.

> , because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly 
> every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way 
> possible" is flawed.

No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him. And even if the 
quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible 
way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.

> That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition 
> (how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your 
> posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).

since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong assumption.

Post a reply to this message