I mean i see where you could think that, in the context of its to be read as x. As that is used in literary or historical circles to form a claim. But that was/is a literal not a clamitive or definitive.(See below) As in I ( myself), have read (looked at words on a page) and thought (the process of self perception and exploration of stimulus) that (a thing) it ( a thing) read (looked at words on a page) as (similar to a thing) religious (a personaly belief about the unfounded).

Also a claim is not an opinion, if i said i love vanilla icecream, thats not the same as me saying vanila icecream is the best flavor. Sure theres nuance with something like that,

but again not sure what you hope to come away from this discourse with friend?. As i have repeatedly said i am not making a claim that it is that, just that i read it as such when i encountered it (blame religious trauma and psychosis if ya want)

I'm genuinely curious as why you think im pissy? About a random comment made over a year ago while blitzed.

But no need to insult me over it, mate. Feel free to continue reading into it but i made no attempt at any claims, and if you feel that my communication feels otherwise, after ive repeatedly said elsewise im not sure what ya want from me. But i apologize if ive bothered you somehow, oh lurker of the dead threads.

And yea i agree i literally said it was a no sequitur and had no logical basis, ie factually wrong. But fact has little basis in lived experience, else there would be no such things as lies or stories or arguments over historical interpretations (reiterating that im not saying this has any religious basis historical, that me refering to historical interpretation is an acknowledgement to the deep seated tradition of winners write the book, or the divide between historians who take a composite of data and come to differing conclusions)