[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
All right, it's tomorrow. I think we made the challenge.

1.) Find a contradiction:

2:62 - Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

-> All 3 religions are sort of equal.

9:30 - The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

-> Jews and Christians suck.

A contradiction, qed.

2.) Find something wrong :

I think 9:30 already qualifies as "something wrong". It's not nice to wish that god may curse someone (in my Quran's translation wish death to Jews and Christians).

There's also

8:12 - Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Wishing death and mutilation to others is definitely wrong, qed.

Here's a detailed answer

Just follow the links for an even more detailed explanation.

[zigzag]

I see two issues here:

(a) Non-Muslims believing that the Quran encourages intolerance and even violence, which causes them to fear and discriminate against Muslims. Logic seems to be trying to persuade these people that, if read properly in the original Arabic, the Quran does not encourage intolerance or violence and therefore there is no reason to fear or discriminate against Muslims. A noble pursuit as far as it goes.

(b) Muslims who speak Arabic yet read the Quran the in same way as the aforementioned non-Muslims and then fly planes into buildings. This doesn't invalidate Logic's position, but it does make it more difficult to accept the notion that there is only one correct interpretation, and that his is it. I prefer to think so, but experience tells me that it will never be so because language is so malleable and humans tend to see in it what they want to see.

Thus the danger in believing that the Quran or any other book - the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Heloise's Hints - is the infallible word of God, an otherwise inexplicable miracle, a divine providence. Anytime you make that assumption, you're asking for trouble. It will invariably be used against you as well as for you.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
OK, his argumentation is that the Quran is wrong here, because it is intentionally wrong (to relate to existing knowledge of the time).

Of course with this argumentation - if it's wrong, it's intentionally wrong - everything in the Quran is right by definition. That is called a dogma. Impossible to argue against that.

And neither this guy, nor his "physician friends" ever heard of the prostate, so I have difficulties taking him serious.

Never heard of the prostrate? Didn't see that in the article.

His argumentation is not that the Quran is wrong but that the Quran does not say penis, testicles and vagina because that would devalue the book. Part of the modesty part of islam. Are you sure you read the article with an open mind?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
Part of the modesty part of islam.

Where's the modesty in discriminating against non-Muslims?

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
Here's a detailed answer

Just follow the links for an even more detailed explanation.

Fvck you! I pull out my Quran, google about Islam an Quarn for hours, and find the answer for your stupid challange, and all you do is reply with this lame link? Are you too lazy to reply with your own word?

And did you miss where I said I can not take that guy seriously? And you link to his footnotes!?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Where's the modesty in discriminating against non-Muslims?

?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Developer:
Fvck you! I pull out my Quran, google about Islam an Quarn for hours, and find the answer for your stupid challange, and all you do is reply with this lame link? Are you too lazy to reply with your own word?

Easy, Dev. The religious always do this, provoke anger and then try to make you feel guilty for it, unmodest.

Of course a group collective have to quote others rather than use their own voice.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
?

That is not a reply or answering any questions. It's mockery and dodging an important issue. It's that type of ad hominem and pretending to be spotless victims that has provoked the French into denying a freedom - because you don't want to address the problems, pretend the problems don't exist, question everyone else's sanity apart from your own and then want the freedom to be able to preach an ideology that undermines secular freedoms.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
Fvck you! I pull out my Quran, google about Islam an Quarn for hours, and find the answer for your stupid challange, and all you do is reply with this lame link? Are you too lazy to reply with your own word?

And did you miss where I said I can not take that guy seriously? And you link to his footnotes!?

?

One rule: keep it civil or don't post.

Did you read the article and the articles there? Or are you saying that you would trust my own words better than a muslim scholars? Sorry if you spent all this time googling for the Quran and that I didn't tell you how long it took for me to find a good article on the subject.

From now on I'll let you know how many hours and minutes it takes for me to find a good article about what you ask.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
?

One rule: keep it civil or don't post.

Did you read the article and the articles there?

Did you?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I see two issues here:

(a) Non-Muslims believing that the Quran encourages intolerance and even violence, which causes them to fear and discriminate against Muslims. Logic seems to be trying to persuade these people that, if read properly in the original Arabic, the Quran does not encourage intolerance or violence and therefore there is no reason to fear or discriminate against Muslims. A noble pursuit as far as it goes.

(b) Muslims who speak Arabic yet read the Quran the in same way as the aforementioned non-Muslims and then fly planes into buildings. This doesn't invalidate Logic's position, but it does make it more difficult to accept the notion that there is only one correct interpretation, and that his is it. I prefer to think so, but experience tells me that it will never be so because language is so malleable and humans tend to see in it what they want to see.

Thus the danger in believing that the Quran or any other book - the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Heloise's Hints - is the infallible word of God, an otherwise inexplicable miracle, a divine providence. Anytime you make that assumption, you're asking for trouble. It will invariably be used against you as well as for you.

*clap clap clap*

Excellent point. I would love to hear from an Arabic scholar on how much Ye Olde Arabic differs from modern Arabic.

English isn't a static language even in spite of the help of dictionaries. I seriously doubt that the meaning of all of the Qur'an is exactly the same as it was when those who spoke Ye Olde Arabic read it.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Easy, Dev. The religious always do this, provoke anger and then try to make you feel guilty for it, unmodest.

Of course a group collective have to quote others rather than use their own voice.

hmmm. that's a mighty wide brush, there.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
That is not a reply or answering any questions. It's mockery and dodging an important issue. It's that type of ad hominem and pretending to be spotless victims that has provoked the French into denying a freedom - because you don't want to address the problems, pretend the problems don't exist, question everyone else's sanity apart from your own and then want the freedom to be able to preach an ideology that undermines secular freedoms.

wow, that's about the most "reading into" I've seen for a question mark.

let's see what you get out of this:

@#!! ''')()(!!!

Will I meet a tall, dark and handsome man? Tell me, fortune teller!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
That is not a reply or answering any questions. It's mockery and dodging an important issue. It's that type of ad hominem and pretending to be spotless victims that has provoked the French into denying a freedom - because you don't want to address the problems, pretend the problems don't exist, question everyone else's sanity apart from your own and then want the freedom to be able to preach an ideology that undermines secular freedoms.

I don't believe I was asked a question. My '?' was because I did not understand your question - still don't. What problems are you referring to? because I'm aware of many problems and I do not wish to pretend they do not exist either. Do you have anything specific in mind? Neither do I question everyone else's sanity. I certainly do not understand what you mean when you say I wish to preach an ideology that undermines secularism. Is my opposition against the French ban undermining secularism? Please do tell me what in the bluest of blue hells you are on about!

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hmmm. that's a mighty wide brush, there.

Islam, and other religions, paint others with a wide brush too. Isn't it one rule for all, equality for all, etc?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I don't believe I was asked a question. My '?' was because I did not understand your question - still don't. What problems are you referring to?

You realize you just proved my point?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Islam, and other religions, paint others with a wide brush too. Isn't it one rule for all, equality for all, etc?

not really, if I understand you correctly.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
You realize you just proved my point?

No. I asked you to elaborate. You were unclear. I cannot deny a problem - as you seem to be suggesting, if I do not know what you are referring to. There are many problems, YOU need to be more specific about the problems YOU are referring to.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No. I asked you to elaborate. You were unclear.

I've asked clear questions above and in the other thread. All you have to do is copy and paste each one, all of them important, then answer them in an intelligent and open minded manner without resorting to one word answers, using symbols or shirking away. If the questions aren't clear, about Islam's disrespect towarss other creeds and the lack of secularism and freedom in some Islamic countries, then I'm afraid I don't have the ability to make them any clearer. I'm working within my own godless meagre confines.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
Are you sure you read the article with an open mind?

Yes, I did. are you sure you did?
And I fully understood his line of argumentation.

"In the same way, a close look at such instances where the Qur'an has referred to any of the physical (or scientific) laws would show that such laws have been referred to, not to give any information about the physical laws of this world, but as evidence and signs or arguments in support of the point that the Qur'an wants to establish."

" it seems more likely that most of the physical laws referred to by the Qur'an are such, which were generally, known by the Arabs of the times of the Prophet (pbuh). We know that a supportive argument is likely to be more effective only when it is mutually known as well as agreed upon by the speaker and the addressee."

So here he argues that when Quran is wrong, it is intentionally wrong to relate to existing knowledge. So that it is easier to understand. Therefore it is the right way to make a point. Therefore Quran is right.
That is fine, but it is a dogma. You can not argue against this argumentation. It is based on belief. Based on the belief that god intentionally made these "mistakes" for a purpose.

Then he goes on to argue that Quran is indeed right, but politely avoiding to name sexual organs. That's a fine argument too. To be able to argue like this he needs to name the origin of the semen...

Never heard of the prostrate? Didn't see that in the article.

...so he asks his "doctor friends".

"(I) asked a few of my doctor friends about the making of the male sperm and the supply of its ingredients to the ultimate place of its making. In response, among a few other things, I was told that although the male sperm is formed in the testes, yet the blood supply which, obviously, is integral to the making of the sperm comes from between the ribs and the back. I was also told by one of my doctor friends that the cells that form the sperm originate from between the ribs and the back."

Sorry, but what kind of non-sense is this? None of his "doctor friends" ever heard of the prostate? Or are they too shy to name that organ too?

Sorry, but at that point I couldn't take it serious any more.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
Or are you saying that you would trust my own words better than a muslim scholars?

No, I'm saying that I don't care about any muslim scholars! I'm not going to read their stuff, nor any other religious non-sense.

It was your challenge to post mistakes and inconsistencies in Quran. We did, and I thought you would then come and say whether we found the right ones, and tell as what this stupid challenge was about.

Would you have said "posts mistakes and inconsistencies in Quran, and I will post explanations from muslim scholars why you are wrong" right from the beginning, I would have known that you are a religious nutbag and not bothered with you.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I've asked clear questions above and in the other thread. All you have to do is copy and paste each one, all of them important, then answer them in an intelligent and open minded manner without resorting to one word answers, using symbols or shirking away. If the questions aren't clear, about Islam's disrespect towarss other creeds and the lack of secularism and freedom in some Islamic countries, then I'm afraid I don't have the ability to make them any clearer. I'm working within my own godless meagre confines.

Ahem well, I don't know what all my posts have been about today then? kittens maybe?
I have answered as many questions from you as I can.

Islam does not encourage disrespect toward other creeds, on the contrary it encourages acceptance.

Unfortunately, Islamic teaching has been badly distorted as of late. Those who understand the difference can make the distinction between radical Islam and Islam. I do not condone radical Islam. I do not approve of the way some Arab states wrongly apply Islamic teaching and deny peoples freedoms. It makes me sad. It also makes me sad when people continually fail to see that Islam does not encourage such things.

[zigzag]

A question: why would it be such a stretch to admit that, well, maybe the Quran (and the Bible, etc.) originally reflected certain values that we wouldn't subscribe to today, but we can still learn from it? Why is it necessary to go in circles explaining it in a way that seems utterly benign (or, if you will, politically correct), no matter the era or culture? How likely is it that any ancient text would be so accommodating? It's like saying that "Well, the Spanish Inquisitioners just misinterpreted the Bible - our current benign reading is the only conceivably correct one." Why should the Quran be immune from the rules that apply to all other texts, i.e. we tend to see in them what we want to see?

I know the answer, of course - true belief seems to require infallibility. Admitting that the Quran might have temporal qualities would mean admitting that it might not be the last word on everything, which, apparently, would present too great a risk.

It seems to me that energy would be better spent not trying to convince the non-Muslim world that the Quran is the infallible word of God, but convincing the extremists that it might not be infallible word of God and that they should chill out.

Why does a belief in God require an infallible text? I don't get it.

[lil'babykitten]

dp

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
A question: why would it be such a stretch to admit that, well, maybe the Quran (and the Bible, etc.) originally reflected certain values that we wouldn't subscribe to today, but we can still learn from it? Why is it necessary to go in circles explaining it in a way that seems utterly benign (or, if you will, politically correct), no matter the era or culture? How likely is it that any ancient text would be so accommodating? It's like saying that "Well, the Spanish Inquisitioners just misinterpreted the Bible - our current benign reading is the only conceivably correct one." Why should the Quran be immune from the rules that apply to all other texts, i.e. we tend to see in them what we want to see?

I know the answer, of course - true belief seems to require infallibility. Admitting that the Quran might have temporal qualities would mean admitting that it might not be the last word on everything, which, apparently, would present too great a risk.

It seems to me that energy would be better spent not trying to convince the non-Muslim world that the Quran is the infallible word of God, but convincing the extremists that it might not be infallible word of God and that they should chill out.

Why does a belief in God require an infallible text? I don't get it.

I think religious texts (for whatever religion) should be used like a guidebook, even a textbook, but not as an implacable ruler. The important thing to remember is what the book is about. They should all be used a tool for spiritual self-discovery, not iron maidens to impose the will of one group against another.

but, hey, that's just me.

But by the same token, I think people should have at least polite respect for the reverence various religions have for their respective texts, or be considerate of the sensibilities of the adherents...Because simply lambasting or lampooning them accomplishes only further retrenchment and movement away from understanding or cooperation.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

Islam does not encourage disrespect toward other creeds, on the contrary it encourages acceptance.

Acceptance on conditon that they, unbelievers, pay a tax or eventually convert. But followers of other creeds are still condemned to a hell-fire. This is no different from psycho Christian fundamentalist beliefs (after all, Islam splintered away from Arab Christianity. Judaism has no concept of heaven and hell or afterlife rewards and punishments).

I asked about tolerance towards other faiths in Arabia. This is unanswered. I asked why the Islamic world wasn't up in arms when the Buddhas of Bamiyan, a global and historically valued treasure and symbol of peace, was blown up. You've also been asked about comments in the Koran about Jews and others. There's no escaping Islam's problem with other religions and lifestyles even when the non-Muslims attacked have not offended anyone. I can understand Islam's problem with the Roman Christian empires years ago, even against American Christians now, but until Islam looks at itself and how it treats others then Muslims shouldn't expect any great favors in the meantime.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Why does a belief in God require an infallible text? I don't get it.

It's the result of trying to make all of the following claims jive:

• God is omnipotent.
• God is omniscient.
• God is infallible (omni-wise-guy? )
• Our Religion possesses His Divine Text wherein He Revealed the Truth.

Seriously, choose any three, and I'd bet you could find a way to make it jive with an imperfect Divine Text. All four is not logically possible, though.

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think religious texts (for whatever religion) should be used like a guidebook, even a textbook, but not as an implacable ruler. The important thing to remember is what the book is about. They should all be used a tool for spiritual self-discovery, not iron maidens to impose the will of one group against another.

Agreed. I'm not against the Bible - I think it's a fascinating document - I'm just against people using it to, as you say, impose their will on others.

But by the same token, I think people should have at least polite respect for the reverence various religions have for their respective texts, or be considerate of the sensibilities of the adherents...Because simply lambasting or lampooning them accomplishes only further retrenchment and movement away from understanding or cooperation.

Agreed, to a point. Reverence for a text I can appreciate, unquestioning adherence (or tortuous reinterpretations to allow for same) is more troublesome for me.

[itai195]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It seems to me that energy would be better spent not trying to convince the non-Muslim world that the Quran is the infallible word of God, but convincing the extremists that it might not be infallible word of God and that they should chill out.

Unforunately, that's the opposite of what we're doing. For example, one of the few possessions allowed to the captives at Guantanamo is a copy of the Quran. It seems counter-intuitive to me -- we're giving them copies of the Quran to show that we support Islam, but it's the very same book that contains the teachings they [mis]interpret in support of their fundamentalist beliefs.

I'm actually quite surprised to see Logic's insistence of the Quran's infallibility. Many modern Christians don't believe the same of the Bible -- at least, they certainly don't of the Old Testament, and they usually don't take Revelation literally either.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Acceptance on conditon that they, unbelievers, pay a tax or eventually convert. But followers of other creeds are still condemned to a hell-fire.

wtf? no!

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I asked about tolerance towards other faiths in Arabia. This is unanswered. I asked why the Islamic world wasn't up in arms when the Buddhas of Bamiyan, a global and historically valued treasure and symbol of peace, was blown up. You've also been asked about comments in the Koran about Jews and others. There's no escaping Islam's problem with other religions and lifestyles even when the non-Muslims attacked have not offended anyone. I can understand Islam's problem with the Roman Christian empires years ago, even against American Christians now, but until Islam looks at itself and how it treats others then Muslims shouldn't expect any great favors in the meantime.

I just said above what my thoughts were on the circumstances in parts of the Arab world.
I don't recall being asked about comments from the Quran nor Buddhas. I've been posting a lot about this subject today so please point out where you asked me this.
I don't wish to get tangled up in issues regarding translations from the Qur'an. We'd be going round in circles with all the interpretations and miss-interpretations.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
We'd be going round in circles with all the interpretations and miss-interpretations.

Again, you're dodging important issues. It's been quoted here in this and another thread many times, the Koran condemning others and Allah condoning murder. Whether in context or out of context it's not right, and in Arabic or a strict translation doesn't change the message it sends out.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Again, you're dodging important issues. It's been quoted here in this and another thread many times, the Koran condemning others and Allah condoning murder. Whether in context or out of context it's not right, and in Arabic or a strict translation doesn't change the message it sends out.

hmm. I think context is important in this case. You don't.
tbh, I don't think you approach your studies of the Qu'ran in an objective manner. You are always looking for something that supports an already decided position of yours.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
hmm. I think context is important in this case. You don't.
tbh, I don't think you approach your studies of the Qu'ran in an objective manner. You are always looking for something that supports an already decided position of yours.

And it's a rational position that I don't need to have faith in. Without that position terrorism and wars against terrorism will continue. It's people like me sticking up for people like you without having to belong to a religion.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
And it's a rational position that I don't need to have faith in. Without that position terrorism and wars against terrorism will continue. It's people like me sticking up for people like you without having to belong to a religion.

I see your point and it is a good one, but I disagree.

I think the absence of objectiveness is an important part of the problem. Fanatical Islamists look to the Qu'ran in order to try and justify and legitimise actions that they have already decided upon. Those like Bush who have started wars to serve their own interests, have used documentation to try and legitimise their actions.
In both cases the person has set about their task with a pre-determined conclusion.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I see your point and it is a good one, but I disagree.

In both cases the person has set about their task with a pre-determined conclusion.

YOU also have a pre-determined position and because fo social factors surrounding you that position will never be questioned. If you don't want to question them, or don't agree with people who do, a secular public forum is the wrong place for you to hang around.

As long as people say 'Bible is right', 'Koran is right', 'We need oil.' etc, then wars will go on regardless of what you think.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
YOU also have a pre-determined position and because fo social factors surrounding you that position will never be questioned. If you don't want to question them, or don't agree with people who do, a secular public forum is the wrong place for you to hang around.

As long as people say 'Bible is right', 'Koran is right', 'We need oil.' etc, then wars will go on regardless of what you think.

You too have a pre-determined position. You say 'Secularism is right'!

We all have pre-determined positions. Only when we fail to acknowledge that others have differing beliefs does this become a problem. When we start enforcing out beliefs on others that is a problem. We need to accept our differences, not fight over them.

The 'We need oil' part is a different story.

[BlackGriffen]

Roon, read the article in the other (more broad) thread, and it summed up this thread in 3 paragraphs:

The Koran takes great care to stress this common monotheistic heritage, but it works equally hard to distinguish Islam from Judaism and Christianity. For example, it mentions prophets -- Hud, Salih, Shu'ayb, Luqman, and others -- whose origins seem exclusively Arabian, and it reminds readers that it is "A Koran in Arabic, / For people who understand." Despite its repeated assertions to the contrary, however, the Koran is often extremely difficult for contemporary readers -- even highly educated speakers of Arabic -- to understand. It sometimes makes dramatic shifts in style, voice, and subject matter from verse to verse, and it assumes a familiarity with language, stories, and events that seem to have been lost even to the earliest of Muslim exegetes (typical of a text that initially evolved in an oral tradition). Its apparent inconsistencies are easy to find: God may be referred to in the first and third person in the same sentence; divergent versions of the same story are repeated at different points in the text; divine rulings occasionally contradict one another. In this last case the Koran anticipates criticism and defends itself by asserting the right to abrogate its own message ("God doth blot out / Or confirm what He pleaseth").

Criticism did come. As Muslims increasingly came into contact with Christians during the eighth century, the wars of conquest were accompanied by theological polemics, in which Christians and others latched on to the confusing literary state of the Koran as proof of its human origins. Muslim scholars themselves were fastidiously cataloguing the problematic aspects of the Koran -- unfamiliar vocabulary, seeming omissions of text, grammatical incongruities, deviant readings, and so on. A major theological debate in fact arose within Islam in the late eighth century, pitting those who believed in the Koran as the "uncreated" and eternal Word of God against those who believed in it as created in time, like anything that isn't God himself. Under the Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-833) this latter view briefly became orthodox doctrine. It was supported by several schools of thought, including an influential one known as Mu'tazilism, that developed a complex theology based partly on a metaphorical rather than simply literal understanding of the Koran.

By the end of the tenth century the influence of the Mu'tazili school had waned, for complicated political reasons, and the official doctrine had become that of i'jaz, or the "inimitability" of the Koran. (As a result, the Koran has traditionally not been translated by Muslims for non-Arabic-speaking Muslims. Instead it is read and recited in the original by Muslims worldwide, the majority of whom do not speak Arabic. The translations that do exist are considered to be nothing more than scriptural aids and paraphrases.) The adoption of the doctrine of inimitability was a major turning point in Islamic history, and from the tenth century to this day the mainstream Muslim understanding of the Koran as the literal and uncreated Word of God has remained constant.

This is just after a section of text in which the author describes the similarities between the Qur'an and the Christian and Jewish traditions.

BG

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think religious texts (for whatever religion) should be used like a guidebook, even a textbook, but not as an implacable ruler. The important thing to remember is what the book is about. They should all be used a tool for spiritual self-discovery, not iron maidens to impose the will of one group against another.

but, hey, that's just me.

But by the same token, I think people should have at least polite respect for the reverence various religions have for their respective texts, or be considerate of the sensibilities of the adherents...Because simply lambasting or lampooning them accomplishes only further retrenchment and movement away from understanding or cooperation.

I agree 100%

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I agree 100%

It's agreeable but not when a person has made a religious challenge and asked people to take on the object of his reverence.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It's agreeable but not when a person has made a religious challenge and asked people to take on the object of his reverence.

No joke.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It's agreeable but not when a person has made a religious challenge and asked people to take on the object of his reverence.

I have no idea what you just said, so, I will leave you with this:


"There are no religions on K-PAX, thank god" ~ prot

[voodoo]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It's agreeable but not when a person has made a religious challenge and asked people to take on the object of his reverence.

true

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It's agreeable but not when a person has made a religious challenge and asked people to take on the object of his reverence.

you make a good point, but the originator of the thread is not the only one being debated in the thread. Many come to the thread merely because they have an interest, or even a vested interest in the topic.
Even if you feel the originator should suffer the slings and arrows of intolerance, it doesn't mean everyone in the thread should, nor the religion as a whole.