Daily Fail

[quote name='Pliskron' post='2707670' date='Mar 27 2010, 09:34 PM']I had some Jehovah's witnesses come to my door a few weeks ago and the woman I was looking at was disgustingly obese. I just looked at her curled my lip and said isn't gluttony one of the seven deadly sins? I was irate. Who it this person knocking on my door preaching to me who's an obvious sinner by her own religion. And we're not talking a run of the mill sin. This was a big dog, seven deadly type. People like that are just mosquitoes and easy to deal with.[/quote]
That was just plain nasty. For all you know, she might have had a medical issue or something. The "seven deadly sins" don't actually apply either.

And besides, they were being polite; you have a choice whether you wanted to listen to them or not, and if you explained that you weren't interested in a polite manner that would've been enough. They didn't barge into your house and force you at gunpoint to listen to them, did they?

It was free speech to call her fat

[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707700' date='Mar 27 2010, 10:45 PM'][quote name='Pliskron' post='2707670' date='Mar 27 2010, 09:34 PM']I had some Jehovah's witnesses come to my door a few weeks ago and the woman I was looking at was disgustingly obese. I just looked at her curled my lip and said isn't gluttony one of the seven deadly sins? I was irate. Who it this person knocking on my door preaching to me who's an obvious sinner by her own religion. And we're not talking a run of the mill sin. This was a big dog, seven deadly type. People like that are just mosquitoes and easy to deal with.[/quote]
That was just plain nasty. For all you know, she might have had a medical issue or something. The "seven deadly sins" don't actually apply either.

And besides, they were being polite; you have a choice whether you wanted to listen to them or not, and if you explained that you weren't interested in a polite manner that would've been enough. They didn't barge into your house and force you at gunpoint to listen to them, did they?
[/quote]
The only medical condition she had was a jumbo pastrami sandwich in her big fat fingers. People like that disgust me. Remember what Jesus said. Let he/she who is with sin cast the first stone. That pig would have been better served if she went home and tried to live the word rather than bothering other people. Still I don;t grudge her her ignorance. It was highly amusing.

To get back on topic to the homosexuality issue, I find that most people who say that homosexuality is a sin makes them gay (or at least question whether or not they are in fact straight) And honestly, religion is just a huge excuse for violence and other otherwise-criminal acts.

Freedom of speach... iunno, obviously you uneducated, incorrect fucks can say what you want on the internet, so why is real life so different?

[quote name='Advice Dog' post='2707689' date='Mar 27 2010, 10:41 PM']'round where I live anti-gay propaganda and shouting and preaching like that is perfectly acceptable if you're not being incredibly hateful. Unfortunately, America can be very unaccepting of homosexuality at the core, in some towns you'll be publicly beaten and even killed for it. It's just a fact of life in a lot of places, and being arrested can be highly unusual. I guess this is just America though, Europe is probably very different.

(Of course, there's usually a breaking point: WBC preached in hatred at fucking funerals of gay guys and said that terrorism against American armed forces was a result of gay military personnel being allowed at a discretion. Again, I'm all for freedom of speech, but I personally draw the line at inbred lunatics.)[/quote]

The UK has it's fair share of homophobes but it's nothing like America. It's a little turbulent here at the moment, there's a very high anti-Islam feeling running through the county, but usually we're a very tolerant country with a minority of intolerant people. The rights that we're afforded to speak out are also really high, but there is a limit to what we can say. I could stand all day in the street and yell homosexuality is wrong, but if I was to suggest they should all be beaten or killed then I would be overstepping the mark and would be arrested for incitement to commit violence. I don't really have a problem with that. Why should freedom of speech protect someones right to call for violence or murder. At it's heart Britain is a socialist country, so we tend to promote social values above most things. As we become more Americanised it's changing but there are more that put tolerance and acceptance over intolerance and rejection.

[quote name='TrolleyDave' post='2708407' date='Mar 27 2010, 11:03 PM'][quote name='Advice Dog' post='2707689' date='Mar 27 2010, 10:41 PM']'round where I live anti-gay propaganda and shouting and preaching like that is perfectly acceptable if you're not being incredibly hateful. Unfortunately, America can be very unaccepting of homosexuality at the core, in some towns you'll be publicly beaten and even killed for it. It's just a fact of life in a lot of places, and being arrested can be highly unusual. I guess this is just America though, Europe is probably very different.

(Of course, there's usually a breaking point: WBC preached in hatred at fucking funerals of gay guys and said that terrorism against American armed forces was a result of gay military personnel being allowed at a discretion. Again, I'm all for freedom of speech, but I personally draw the line at inbred lunatics.)[/quote]

The UK has it's fair share of homophobes but it's nothing like America. It's a little turbulent here at the moment, there's a very high anti-Islam feeling running through the county, but usually we're a very tolerant country with a minority of intolerant people. The rights that we're afforded to speak out are also really high, but there is a limit to what we can say. I could stand all day in the street and yell homosexuality is wrong, but if I was to suggest they should all be beaten or killed then I would be overstepping the mark and would be arrested for incitement to commit violence. I don't really have a problem with that. Why should freedom of speech protect someones right to call for violence or murder. At it's heart Britain is a socialist country, so we tend to promote social values above most things. As we become more Americanised it's changing but there are more that put tolerance and acceptance over intolerance and rejection.
[/quote]
Damn, I envy you. Americans could easily say that they want to "beat the shit out of a fag" and get away with it. Laying a hand on somebody is the only real solid white line.

I can't wait........

[quote name='Advice Dog' post='2708441' date='Mar 28 2010, 05:16 AM']Damn, I envy you. Americans could easily say that they want to "beat the shit out of a fag" and get away with it. Laying a hand on somebody is the only real solid white line.

I can't wait........ [/quote]

What can I say except Socialism FTW! lol America's got a long way to go in my eyes, socio-evolution is pretty low down the scale there. The current outcry over socialised health care just goes to prove it. Move to the UK! We may pay slightly more taxes but we're a country that's smart enough to know that for a country to function properly you've gotta spend money on it's upkeep.

Alrighty gents, let's get a few things out of the way here:

The bible itself, is nothing more than mere edited and closely selected ancient writings put together by the Catholic church. Over the centuries there have been multiple councils that decided what is and what isn't "canonical" for the bible to contain. Currently the two most popular versions are NKJV (New King James Version) and and a modified modern version of the King James Version

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

The NKJV and modern modified version of the bible itself doesn't openly condone homosexuality. In fact, there is barely any mention of homosexuality at all.

Both bible versions also mention almost nothing at all of hell. The word hell is only used twice, and is not described as being "fiery" or even painful for that matter. All your assumptions of hell come from Dante Aligheri's famous epic poem, the "Divine Comedy", written in the fourteenth century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)).

Earlier versions of the christian bible (pre 12th century) didn't have any mention of the 7 deadly sins. Because they were not canon material. During the middle ages however, the church recognized them as canon material, even though their integrity is questionable as there is evidence that they have been written around 300-400 years after the death of christ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evagrius_Ponticus)

Basically, if you haven't realized it yet, anything the bible says is bullshit edited by the church. The old testament which was supposed to be the hebrew bible is nothing at all like the hebrew bible, and the new testament is constantly revised to the church's liking. Anything (regardless of it's origins, ancient or otherwise) that is disregarded by the church is considered more or less heresy.

Some things left out by the bible, for those that care:
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apo...ment-apocrypha/


The three big monotheistic ones (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) have been constantly reworked since their original inception.


TL;DR

Enjoy your lies.

I doubt any of you actually read the bible anyway. Paradise Lost doesn't count as bible knowledge.

[quote name='TrolleyDave' post='2708458' date='Mar 27 2010, 11:31 PM'][quote name='Advice Dog' post='2708441' date='Mar 28 2010, 05:16 AM']Damn, I envy you. Americans could easily say that they want to "beat the shit out of a fag" and get away with it. Laying a hand on somebody is the only real solid white line.

I can't wait........ [/quote]

What can I say except Socialism FTW! lol America's got a long way to go in my eyes, socio-evolution is pretty low down the scale there. The current outcry over socialised health care just goes to prove it. Move to the UK! We may pay slightly more taxes but we're a country that's smart enough to know that for a country to function properly you've gotta spend money on it's upkeep.
[/quote]
Sounds better than the US of A, certainly........I just hope anybody could understand me with my Missouri accent. I barely speak English as it is.

(Of course, Germany's drinking age is pretty low......... )

[quote name='Advice Dog' post='2708509' date='Mar 28 2010, 05:53 AM']Sounds better than the US of A, certainly........I just hope anybody could understand me with my Missouri accent. I barely speak English as it is.

(Of course, Germany's drinking age is pretty low......... )[/quote]

We've got loads of Americans here mate, you wouldn't have a problem at all. Plus you'd get free health care, gay marriage is legal here (one of my friends daughters is gay and got married a couple of years ago), if you're unemployed you'll receive benefits to stop you having to commit crime to pay your rent and eat, basic goods necessary for living are cheaper then they are in America, and loads more perks. Oh, and the legal drinking age is 18. Us Brits enjoy our drink! Oh, and if you're a toker weed is a hell of alot cheaper in this country. Our government is corrupt, but not as corrupt as the US government. Don't get me wrong, the UK has it's faults and isn't the best country in the world but hte pro's outweight the cons.

[quote name='Domination' post='2706896' date='Mar 27 2010, 05:07 PM']You bastard, you don't do it to Hindus, Buddhists. Taoists, Satanists, Thelemites, Pastafarians and the one thousand other religions out there. Religious discrimination >:[/quote]

Sorry Dommy mate, I missed your post! Of course I'd say it to all them, well apart from the Buddhists. Let's face it though, would we be having this argument with a Buddhist! Gautama Buddha never spoke about homosexuality as being wrong. I don't even think he ever mentioned in his teachings.

geez.

people really need to read the bible and not take what it says literally.

"lets all live by rules that apply to a society thats long gone."

in this current day and age, the bible, old testament moreso, doesn't have much of a place, there's too much information readily avaliable to anyone who wants it. it may have been acceptable way back then, where cultures weren't as mixed, where there wasn't 6billion+ living on earth. people are simply too different these days to embrace any single teaching. and others are too willing to voice their opinions, if not forcefully .

Sure you might not like it, but thats simply because they're different. who cares if theres this homosexual sitting next to you on the bus, or serving you somewhere. they're not harming you in any way, they're just minding their own business. what right does someone have to speak out against another purely because of their sexual preferences? and using the bible as support? the bible is just a book filled with teachings that suited a society of people a couple thousand years ago. sure there werent many recorded cases of homosexuals back then but they existed. and in fear of others. any type of peoples would eventually get sick of living in constant fear or oppression. but who has the authority, more so the right to oppress and put a group of people in fear? no one.

There's been an increase of homosexuals and they just want to live their lives out like normal people, however these "normal" people are trying to get them out of the "normal" society. based on what? the bible? its just plain fear that something might happen to themselves or someone they know well. if you actually get to know a few, they're actually not any different from "normal people", in fact they're actually great friends to have.

if there is anything you should take to heart from the bible, it should be the commandment that jesus lay down over the others. "love thy neighbour as thyself". but even a fair share of the christian cant seem to do that.

[quote name='Spentzar' post='2708460' date='Mar 27 2010, 09:32 PM']Alrighty gents, let's get a few things out of the way here:

The bible itself, is nothing more than mere edited and closely selected ancient writings put together by the Catholic church. Over the centuries there have been multiple councils that decided what is and what isn't "canonical" for the bible to contain. Currently the two most popular versions are NKJV (New King James Version) and and a modified modern version of the King James Version

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

The NKJV and modern modified version of the bible itself doesn't openly condone homosexuality. In fact, there is barely any mention of homosexuality at all.

Both bible versions also mention almost nothing at all of hell. The word hell is only used twice, and is not described as being "fiery" or even painful for that matter. All your assumptions of hell come from Dante Aligheri's famous epic poem, the "Divine Comedy", written in the fourteenth century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)).

Earlier versions of the christian bible (pre 12th century) didn't have any mention of the 7 deadly sins. Because they were not canon material. During the middle ages however, the church recognized them as canon material, even though their integrity is questionable as there is evidence that they have been written around 300-400 years after the death of christ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evagrius_Ponticus)

Basically, if you haven't realized it yet, anything the bible says is bullshit edited by the church. The old testament which was supposed to be the hebrew bible is nothing at all like the hebrew bible, and the new testament is constantly revised to the church's liking. Anything (regardless of it's origins, ancient or otherwise) that is disregarded by the church is considered more or less heresy.

Some things left out by the bible, for those that care:
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apo...ment-apocrypha/


The three big monotheistic ones (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) have been constantly reworked since their original inception.


TL;DR

Enjoy your lies.

I doubt any of you actually read the bible anyway. Paradise Lost doesn't count as bible knowledge.[/quote]


Look how easy it is to piss a homosexual off. Look at this troll. *points to above quote* Doesn't understand that his IP is recorded. Thinks that he can pull a fast one on everyone. I can do it too.

Show me proof, physical, hard, bold, juicy proof, that Islamist book "The Koran" has been changed at all, since when it was originally compiled. Show me with that proof, that it has been "constantly reworked" since it's original, Arabic inception.

Don't come back to this topic, nay, the Internet as a whole, until then.

[quote name='A Homosexual' post='2708645' date='Mar 28 2010, 07:37 AM']Look how easy it is to piss a homosexual off. Look at this troll. *points to above quote* Doesn't understand that his IP is recorded. Thinks that he can pull a fast one on everyone. I can do it too.

Show me proof, physical, hard, bold, juicy proof, that Islamist book "The Koran" has been changed at all, since when it was originally compiled. Show me with that proof, that it has been "constantly reworked" since it's original, Arabic inception.

Don't come back to this topic, nay, the Internet as a whole, until then.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts

The Sana'a Qu'ranic manuscripts had significant differences to what is seen in the Qu'ran today.

Plus then there's also admissions from the first Caliph that a great deal of text was lost. Seventy of those who had been entrusted with remembering the scripts were killed during a battle, this is what prompted Abu Bakr to make the first Caliph approved compilation.

Sana'a's manuscripts are the oldest text found...you're obviously not going to find 1400 year old rice paper. Besides, Fuck even hair doesn't last longer than 1000 years, unless you're an Egyptian hong-a-dong.

Anyways...from your own source:

"It reveals unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations..."

GTFO.

And admissions of what now? Sorry, source it up bro. Oh wait, nvm, I have your source. It's going to google.com, and searching up "quran corrupt" and clicking the first link. Get out of here. Give me an irrefutable source. Not some mumbo jumbo garbage.

I don't have to bring up the fact that even children of 7 years of age memorize the entire 30 chapters of the koran...if abu bakr's companions (back then) had lost the scripts, but still memorized it, I don't think there was a problem in recompiling it. Nothing was lost. Now get out of here.

[quote name='A Homosexual' post='2708684' date='Mar 28 2010, 07:57 AM']Sana'a's manuscripts are the oldest text found...you're obviously not going to find 1400 year old rice paper. Fuck even hair doesn't last longer than 1000 years, unless you're an Egyptian hong-a-dong.

Admissions of what now? Sorry, source it up bro.[/quote]

You're correct, the Sana'a Qu'ran is the oldest known in existence. No it was not in perfect condition and yes restoration was done. It was during the restoration that the changes in the current Qu'ran were found. Do you think the the ink on the page rewrote itself over time? Thee are differences between the Suna'a Qu'ran and the modern, it's as simple as that.

As for the admissions of the missing text and lost verses.

"Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. (Burton: The published text ought here to be amended: for "fa lamma jama`a Abu Bakr", I propose to read: "wa lamma yajma` Abu Bakr", to follow: "lam yuktab".) Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, Kitab al-Masahif’, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23) "

[quote name='A Homosexual' post='2708684' date='Mar 28 2010, 07:57 AM']Get out of here. Give me an irrefutable source. Not some mumbo jumbo from haters.[/quote]

Actually I was first informed of this information by a Muslim, not a hater.

Damn, Shiro786 beat me to the fucking punch.

TrolleyDave, you're a god damn fucking noob!

Lesson to be learned kids:

If you don't check your sources, and read your articles, and just post shit from Google and what other people say without checking up on the information yourself...you just look dumb as fuck.

[quote name='Shiro786' post='2708726' date='Mar 28 2010, 08:18 AM']Oh hey! I'm a muslim!

About Sana'a manuscripts:

A Homosexual has actually made a valid point. If you think about it, it's a translation of the Quran from early Hijazi Arabic script. (Source: Same wikipedia page). The quran was compiled in various ancient dialects of arabic, to the arabic form it is found widely today...I think that, yes, it is the oldest existing quran, but it doesn't mean that it is the most valid and pure version of the quran. It's also translated from somewhere.

Besides, read here: " It reveals unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment." (Source: same sana'a manuscript wikipedia page)

About reliability of your source, trolley dave:

"First, it is well known that "al Masahif" by 'Abdullah bin abi Da'ud is full of fabricated narrations. Hence, there's no point of refuting the claim if it is not authentic. It is well known and reported by Islamic scholars that if it weren't for the isnaad (chain of narrators/transmitters), the people would had come up anything they wanted and inculded it in Islam. Thus, I ask the attacker where is the isnaad of this narration? I'm assuming that Zhuri mentioned in the narration is Imam Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn 'Ubaydullah ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (rahimahullah). I say this is a lie attributed to a great Sunni Imam and muhadith (scholar of hadith) as the narrations goes against the well known authentic ahadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari. It has been proved earlier that there were many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam), who memorised and wrote down the entire Qur'an, but we read few names from authentic ahadith (9) (14) (15): 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Ubai bin Ka'b, Abu Ad-Darda', Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid."

read this: http://www.islamic-life.com/other-refutati...quran-preserved

Now...VERIFY THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR SOURCE BEFORE YOU SOURCE! OR ELSE YOU END UP LOOKING VERY UNLEARNED.[/quote]

According to Islamic tradition there have never been any aberrations in the text of the Qu'ran. According to Scholars, Sheiks and Ayatollahs the Qu'ran we see today is an exact replica of what was handed down to Mohammed from Gabriel. Correct? The Sana'a Qu'ran is evidence that there have been changes. Not just in verse orderings but in some verses itself. You blame it on translation, I see it as evidence that there have been changes in the Qu'ranic text.

I see the evidence as credible. It comes from an eyewitness to the fact that there was differences. Even the scholars who studied the text found there to be the changes that are mentioned. Not just unconventional verse orderings but changes in the text as well. They may be minor differences, but when a claim is made that a written book is word for the word the same as it was when it was passed down during oral recitation and this is proof of it's infallibility then even the most minor change is significant.

I know all about the collection tradition. That there had to be a various number of witnesses who could verify that Mohammed had indeed said these things and the recitation of each had to be exact to be considered authentic. If I remember right one of the companions tried to have text entered into it but the submission was rejected because no other witnesses could be found to verify the verse.

Your belief is that the Qu'ranic text is infallible, and you will look for information and reasons for why that is an absolute truth. I'm not concerned either way, people are entitled to follow whatever faith they want. But when I see information that shows that that there have indeed been changes in the Qu'ranic text then I'll look at the information and decide objectively. I'm not anti-Islam, far from it. I'm currently part of a movement trying to ensure that Muslims are allowed to practice their faith, although with a few exceptions to the Sharia as I believe some of the Sharia laws are barbaric. I also see some of the other traditions passed down as morally unacceptable.

We could argue the Qu'ran all day and neither will change their mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to debate it with you want. I'm always happy to receive and learn information that I don't know. I will always see your opinion as biased though. I'm not out to prove anything one way or other, information was asked for and I provided. If you'd like to show me evidence, physical evidence rather tan the conjecture of oral tradition being uncorruptable, then I'd be more than happy to listen to what you have to say. Can you show me a copy of the Qu'ran from the first Caliph that shows that there has not been any changes in the text since it's first compilation?

[quote name='A Homosexual' post='2708732' date='Mar 28 2010, 08:21 AM']Damn, Shiro786 beat me to the fucking punch.

TrolleyDave, you're a god damn fucking noob!

Lesson to be learned kids:

If you don't check your sources, and read your articles, and just post shit from Google and what other people say without checking up on the information yourself...you just look dumb as fuck.[/quote]

I have read quite a bit of information about the Sana'a Qu'ran, not just the Wikipedia. I found it interesting so I searched out information on it. Eyewitnesses declared that there had been changes in the text. Islamic scholars agreed that there were differences in the text. If the changes in the text were neither here nor there and would not influence peoples view on the Qu'ran why then was it supressed? One quick question, are you a Muslim?

Whaoh six pages in a blog...

Anyways...Whats the big deal with this anyways? Wow so some bum on the street hates homosexuals, big woop, so does the bible...But yea he does deserve to get arrested

[quote name='A Homosexual' post='2708645' date='Mar 28 2010, 07:37 AM']Look how easy it is to piss a homosexual off. Look at this troll. *points to above quote* Doesn't understand that his IP is recorded. Thinks that he can pull a fast one on everyone. I can do it too.

Show me proof, physical, hard, bold, juicy proof, that Islamist book "The Koran" has been changed at all, since when it was originally compiled. Show me with that proof, that it has been "constantly reworked" since it's original, Arabic inception.

Don't come back to this topic, nay, the Internet as a whole, until then.[/quote]

I like how you automatically assume I'm a homosexual =).

I'm merely pointing out Christian inaccuracies towards the issue . But hey, I find it amusing how you ignore most of my post and focus on the one bit about Islam.

True, while the Christian bible has been constantly reworked physically, the Qur'an as a physical book has been to (my knowledge) preserved as close to its original writing as possible.

Now, re-read that line, and notice that I don't specifically mention the Qur'an, Bible, or Torah


I'm trying to point out that the GENERAL interpretations of those religions have been constantly reworked since their inception.

Example:
The Qur'an specifically doesn't mention that women need to be veiled from head to toe. So why are many muslim women veiled?
Because that's the general EVOLVED interpretation of the passages that directly relates to this issue, much like how christians view hell as being a fiery place of pain.

Really, a catholic priest damning homosexuals is a nice parallel to a muslim man calling a white woman in England a whore. Neither has their viewpoint correctly justified in their respective books of faith, their society just interpreted it that way.


You seem to be quite asspained though. Sorry.

TrolleyDave: I am A Homosexual.

[quote name='Spentzar' post='2708794' date='Mar 28 2010, 01:17 AM'][quote name='A Homosexual' post='2708645' date='Mar 28 2010, 07:37 AM']Look how easy it is to piss a homosexual off. Look at this troll. *points to above quote* Doesn't understand that his IP is recorded. Thinks that he can pull a fast one on everyone. I can do it too.

Show me proof, physical, hard, bold, juicy proof, that Islamist book "The Koran" has been changed at all, since when it was originally compiled. Show me with that proof, that it has been "constantly reworked" since it's original, Arabic inception.

Don't come back to this topic, nay, the Internet as a whole, until then.[/quote]

I like how you automatically assume I'm a homosexual =).

I'm merely pointing out Christian inaccuracies towards the issue . But hey, I find it amusing how you ignore most of my post and focus on the one bit about Islam.

True, while the Christian bible has been constantly reworked physically, the Qur'an as a physical book has been to (my knowledge) preserved as close to its original writing as possible.

Now, re-read that line, and notice that I don't specifically mention the Qur'an, Bible, or Torah


I'm trying to point out that the GENERAL interpretations of those religions have been constantly reworked since their inception.

Example:
The Qur'an specifically doesn't mention that women need to be veiled from head to toe. So why are many muslim women veiled?
Because that's the general EVOLVED interpretation of the passages that directly relate to this issue, much like how christians view hell as being a fiery place of pain.

Really, a catholic priest damning homosexuals is a nice parallel to a muslim man calling a white woman in England a whore. Neither has their viewpoint correctly justified in their respective books of faith, their society just interpreted it that way.


You seem to be quite asspained though. Sorry.
[/quote]

Ugh you're right. My bad, i'm fucking retarded, I apologize as well.

The thing is, you started talking about contradictions in the Bible, and then said that they were reworked. FORGIVE ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED.

Yes I agree with you. But there are people in each respective religion that are trying to bring the original teachings back, by adhering to certain aspects of only their holy scriptures, and are trying to teach the right way.