Try again.![]()
I am staying on topic...every bit as much as you are. The fact that you cannot acknowledge that is not my problem.[except for the part where you are introducing an arbitrary test to qualify the legitimacy of someone's religious beliefs, rather than simply addressing the question of whether or not it is okay to violate them at gunpoint, sure]
[It's not about written vs. hypothetical. What is written proves you wrong. It's about comprehending the teachings vs. not comprehending them, not that any of this is relevant].
What you are saying here is not on topic...but it is relevant...just as my comments were.
C'mon. You can acknowledge that without turning into a pumpkin.
[wrong again, Islam was brought up to enable your hypocritical and narrow mind to see an example of someone derailing a discussion on the violation of religious beliefs that you AREN'T bigoted against. Comprehend it yet?]
I am not bigoted against any religious beliefs (blind guesses about REALITY).
If people want to make blind guesses...fine with me.
[Of course not. God, you're dense].
YOU brought it up.
And I am far from dense.
[I am Agnostic]
Good for you. My position also is agnostic...although I seldom use the descriptor any longer because it means different things to different people.
But you mentioned something from the Bible...and even agnostics use Bibles in discussions of this sort.
Just wondering which one you use.