Noooow then!

mint, you didnt agrtee with me, fair crack, the point is it was my opinion and it doesnt need mass justification from the p.c. brigade

Hear we go again!!!








lol

I did justify it, I had proof in that thread of why i dont agree with it. Its a religion stuck in the medieval times

Just cos it isnt Politically correct to say that these days, i get shit on

Show me a religion that isn't!

The point is, anyone can take an religion or religious text and manipulate it. It's all down to interpretation. No-one even speaks the languages they were originally written in. The translations we have are translations of translations of translations etc. And like any translation, there is a great deal of interpretation, partly because we simply don't have the exact words for some things and so have to make an approximation. If this is done several times over, the original meaning can become extremely distorted, often to reflect the ideals of the person doing the translating. This is how, in many religions, there are some that use them to justify violence while others claim they are peaceful.

And that is why you are wrong to say islam is violent. It's too sweeping a generalisation. Christianity has a similar history - just look at the crusades.

you read why the crusades started?

I got my transcripts from an old version of the Quran

That proves my point - an old version. If you went back and translated from the original text, with an understanding of exactly how the language was used at the time, then you may have a point. Until then you are relying on other people's interpretation.

The quran isnt like a version of romeo and Juliet, oit doesnt get updated that often. the one i read was still in cirulation

No, but there isn't just one version, which is why you get different branches of Islam (Sunni, Shia etc). The same as with Christianity (Catholic, Protestant and all the other sub divisions). As I've said, this all comes down to interpretation of the original texts, along with some historical reasons for the splits.

You will also find that translating from ancient arabic, through its various permutations to modern arabic and then into English, this adds up to quite a few updates.

Finally, if islam is a violent religion and preaches intolerance etc, why are there significant numbers (ie the majority) who are non-violent and tolerant, yet devout? Surely by your own argument they wouldn't exist?

luckily because most have some civilised manor not to harm other humans.
_____

shia shi'ite sunny, all spring from the same tree. all based off the same book,

same old shit different day

slay the infidel and knob 10 hoes in heaven while smoking a pipe with your best bud Allah

There really is no point arguing with you if you can't even grasp the concept of interpretation, is there? LANGUAGE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE! It's really not that difficult to understand.

yeah, I worked that out too, so I'm not bothering

Me either!! :bang:

another top avatar cookee

It is just completely beyond me how someone can fail to understand that a text written hundreds of years ago, which has gone through many translations, may be interpreted differently from either its original intent or to concurrent versions! I'm obviously expecting too much.

Thanks

Yeah I think that was your fatal mistake.... this is not the same as a debate with a rational intelligent person you know

i only had to read the bottom post to know who you's would be on about...it was either going to be dumber or dumber!

this version is still in use today which i already told you

how come you seem to miss my point and then younall start to take the piss when i already explained it