I will, but as his answers showed me that I'd been reading things wrong, it's only right I check my assumptions first, or it just makes it a challenge to 'prove' it's wrong, rather than a genuine attempt to understand. By way of example, a couple of bits I would have asked were, if the koran is the clear word of God, why are their different versions of Islam (sunni, Shia etc) and why does it need 'scholars' to interpret and explain the meaning. I've Googled, and I can see why it's sort of the wrong question, and I can't explain the answer, but there does seem to be one. I'm not expecting answers on here, I'll Google, as some of the things I've read in doing that have surprised me. I had a fair bit wrong, and some of the claims made on the web that are critical and I took near enough at face value from the quotes, seem to be wide of the mark. As an example, the Koran appears to say quite clearly that it's acceptable for a man to beat a woman. Looking deeper, the verse has a different meaning, although up to now, the answers do seem to indicate that it's a male dominated book, and I can't yet find the answer to a role reversal, where the ruling would apply to a woman on a man. I don't expect answers on here, I'm learning a lot by looking. I'll save asking until I find something I still don't grasp after looking. The next ones I'm looking at relate to the word of God seemingly being a collection of older information from the Greeks, and rituals from pagans and Christians. Is their some logic to the claim that man is created from somewhere near the back and ribs. Why did god crucify a jesus look a like. Why did mohamed seem to live a life that didn't follow the teachings. Does the example of Mohamed's life give justification for terrorism. I thought I was reading with an open, but cynical mind. It's clear to me that I wasn't being as open minded as I thought, and I didn't know as much as I thought I did.
All books of god are open to interpretation, otherwise you'd be left with the fairly unambiguous 10 commandments. The rest of the text is amendments and clauses so we have some justification for ignoring them.
I think the bible actually contains over 600 commandments. All are a tad vague when looked at closely. Can I swat a fly? Is hell full of soldiers?
There's a few in the Syrian region, some in Rome and one or two others scattered around the globe that seem to take a bit more than a passing interest.
The 10 Commandments are open to interpretation, too. Though shalt not kill? Murder's probably a better translation, especially as there are a bunch of other commands to kill people. I read somewhere that they're essentially chapter headings. Makes more sense that way, actually.
Just a quick reply, there isn't different version of islam as such at all to be honest. The difference between sunni and shia sect became after the death of prophet Muhammed (saw). The main difference between the sect i will explain quickly. The divide came into place when the muslim leader was choosen after the prophets death. Sunni (which i am) choose to let the people decide who the best person was to lead the muslims, Abu Bakr (ra) one of the companions was choosen to lead the muslims by the people. The Shia group wanted Ali (ra) as they believe the leadership should be passed to family member even though Ali (ra) accepted Abu Bakr (ra) as the leader. The leadership should always go to the best person rather than to a person who is family member. Also the other difference is that they believe in the 12 imams who are inflable, where as we Sunni muslims dont believe in that as we believe all humans are falable and not perfect and cannot take their words as if it's Gods word.
Cheers for that. That's a good summary of what I read. Although in your reply, I misread the imams as being "inflatable".
About swatting flies? Doubt it. Referring specifically to the Bible, I can't imagine anyone takes every word literally. It's all open to interpretation, as the written word always is; anyone who can read must know that?. The Old Testament in particular contains a handful of absurdities which critics sometimes use to discredit Christian and Jewish theology in their entirety. But that's like finding one discrepancy in the Highway Code and declaring the whole thing void - utter bollocks.
Some people do believe all of it literally, I'm afraid. Even the bits that disagree with other bits, to paraphrase Ned Flanders. I think that finding "discrepancies" in a revelation from God is quite a good reason to declare the whole thing void. How would you do it?
Broader questions would be, if there is an omnieverything being that made everything and judges us, why did he bother, and if we're in his image, why are we all unique, what was the inspiration for the other life forms, and why make disease?
I dont think people descredit the religion as such, as most muslims dont think that Christianity for instance is bad as such but it isn't followed to it's true form at all. The bible has been amended as and when people needed or wanted over the years. The other thing dont forget not many people know or read the Bible in its original language they rely on the translation, english language is very simple in its essence compared to other languages. One word can have various meanings in other languages but to translate that in english you have limitations.
Whether you believe The Bible contains revelations from God - irrespective of the title of the last book of the canon - depends on what sort of God, if any, you believe in. If certain divine mysteries have been revealed to people over the centuries, these revelations have been recorded not by God but by fallible man, who by his very nature is incapable of grasping more than fragment of the divine plan (See God's answer to Job). Either way, seeking to invalidate 3000 years of accumulated literature, wisdom and culture because some of it doesn't make sense is a pretty ignorant thing to do. Who claims to believe every word? No one sane and no one who is taken seriously I wouldn't have thought.
I'd suggest that the same criticisms would apply to virtually all religions and I can understand why. Whilst I'm clearly not religious, I'm bloody glad that Christians don't follow the Bible as it's written. There's far too much slavery, stoning and authoritarianism for me, I'm afraid.
Which is why when King James the VI of Scotland became James I of England, he employed the most learned linguists and scholars, from across a huge spectrum of Christian belief, to compile an edition of the Bible in English that would unite his kingdom and be acceptable to all schools of religious thought. They argued and agonised over every word, and while they might have failed in the plan to resolve theological debate, they produced an absolute masterpiece of literature and scholarship. That was the 17th Century's great gift to the English speaking world, and proof that God probably is English (albeit Jewish on his mother's side).
