|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/18/07 21:06
"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13f09e2nqv3o174@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:0jVHi.56$W76.42@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
>> news:13f07nvm1b461ac@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>>>> belief.
>>>
>>> A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious
>>> dogma and practices makes a religion.
>>
>> i agree with where you're going, but being logical, the definition of
>> religion cannot contain religion as part of its definition. ;^) your
>> point wasn't lost though.
>
> A belief couple with dogma and practices relating to desires and
> existence -- or noexistence -- of a deity makes a religion. Better?
> Irrelevency does not constitute dogma and practices.
he he he...yes, better. ;^)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|