I was.
The OP asked what your favorite Abrahamic religion was. There is no religion called "the one that doesn't doesn't get involved in killing others," which is what your answer was. Thus implying that there are Abrahamic religions that involve themselves in killing others. Thus creating drama.
If you "truthfully answered the OP's question" without inciting drama, your response would have been "Jehovah's Witnesses" (or Quakers, because I'm not aware of any Quaker terrorist organizations).
So you're not a leader in your religion then? Because you didn't use the word "shepherd" in your previous posts. You used "religious leaders."
There are no leaders in Jehovah's Witnesses aside from Jehovah? No
Governing Body? Only a band of brothers?
As into bring into control or governance. As in "religious leaders" or a governing body.
Oh, but I will.
I was asking for clarification if you meant divine love, romantic love, or some other form of love, because you chose to qualify the term with "genuine."
Instead you come back with "'What I
think you know'?!" as if outraged by the statement when you clearly made a statement about your thinking I know something:
Then you continue on with a passive-aggressive tripe about my guard being raised and an assumption about how my discussions with my JW coworker went.
Please don't play manipulative posturing games with me. I've been sincere, transparent, and forthcoming with you, and I would appreciate being afforded the same level of respect if you wish to continue this discussion.
Also, I'm not sure if this is a JW thing, but I've seen others here use the same tactic, presumably in an attempt to end a discussion or avert a response to a point that was made.
But given the candor of your previous point, it comes off as less than sincere.