Islamic protest march planned for Wootton Basset

[Angilion]

There is more than one occasion in more than one book where such things are stated.

Not really, no. For example, the two most quoted verses are both in Leviticus and are copies of each other (one with the death penalty, one without). There are a few other verses in the old testament, all of which are unclear and all of which can be ignored by Christians in a theologically sound way. There's one in the New Testament, but it's not part of the teachings of Jesus (it's from Paul), so Christians could ignore it for that reason. It's also utterly unclear what Paul was referring to, as he used a word that isn't used elsewhere (EDIT: transliterated Greek - arsenokoitai )and was not any of the words used by ancient Greeks to refer to men who had homosexual sex. So no-one actually knows what he was referring to anyway.

But the example was just to highlight that The Bible can be Mis-Interpreted as easily as the Quran,

Far more easily, I'd say, because it's a collection of books selected from a far larger collection of writings and passed through one or more translations.

Your translation is incorrect however . I'm not sure where you get the translation "And with a man you shall not lay lyings of a woman." from?

It's the literal translation of the oldest extant Hebrew version, which is the oldest extant version. You were talking about the literal meaning - that is the literal meaning. What did the person who wrote it more than two millenia ago intend it to mean? Nobody really knows.

The King James Bible states: Leviticus 20:13

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

The latest Translation in the World English Bible:

"'If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

these are the latest translations of each version, so are not inaccurate.

i) The KJV is from 1611. It is not the latest translation, not by a long chalk. You've given a modern English version of it (bar 'lieth', which is an anachronism in this context).

ii) What makes you think that the latest translation of something must be accurate?

Its plainly advocating the death penalty for Homosexuality. I am not saying that modern christians follow the literal meaning of the Bible, just that it can conceivably be interpreted in an extreme fashion as can the Quran.

i) It's Jewish, not Christian.
ii) It's not a correct translation.
iii) It's not advocated by Christians.
iv) Christianity allows for an assertion that the Christian bible isn't the word of god anyway.

So it's not the same situation as with the Quran.

Incidentally, why is 'Quran' now the preferred transliteration? It doesn't make sense in English, so it's a pretty poor transliteration into English.

And not so hard pressed if there is the Westboro Baptist Church, which as you say has been denounced by moderate Christian churches, as Islam4uk has been by the moderate Muslim council of Britain which represents British Islam.

i) It has only a few dozen members, nearly all (all?) of whom are from the same family.

ii) It has been formally disowned, not just denounced. It is not recognised as a valid church at all.

iii) It is not running countries.

So, again, it is not a valid comparison. And you would be hard pressed to find Christians advocating the death penalty for homosexuality.

There are many Chritian and Neo-Nazi and far-right groups who advocate death for Homosexuals. We are talking of Moderate Christians who do not, As Moderate Muslims do not.

I'm sure there are neo-Nazi and other far-right groups who do so, but this is about religion. So I'd like you to substantiate your claim and provide examples of many Christian groups who advocate the death penalty for homosexuality.

I must also point out that these are not my beliefs either, I do not advocate murder or hatred for any reason before you accuse me of such instead of admitting your mistake.

Since I haven't made a mistake, I am hardly likely to admit to this mistake I haven't made.

So...how do you personally get around the direct commands from god for torture and death that are in the Quran without saying that the Quran is wrong?

To pick just one example, An-Nur 24: 2

For an Islamic discussion on it:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548032

Note that isn't an unsual or extreme position. An extreme position would define zina far more widely, as Mohammed himself went as far as defining it to be even thinking about sex outside marriage.

 

[Angilion]

*sigh*

morons, ALL OF THEM.

I agree. Also, what's with Nick Griffin being Gandalf in that statement? They shall not pass!

Which is worse...the more honest hatred from Islam4UK or the sly use of dead soldiers for political reasons by the BNP? Particularly since the BNP are the sort of people our soldiers have fought wars against.

The savage in me suggests creating a cordon and letting both sides kill each other in the streets, thus improving the country.

 

[Gaidin109]

Not really, no. For example, the two most quoted verses are both in Leviticus and are copies of each other (one with the death penalty, one without). There are a few other verses in the old testament, all of which are unclear and all of which can be ignored by Christians in a theologically sound way. There's one in the New Testament, but it's not part of the teachings of Jesus (it's from Paul), so Christians could ignore it for that reason. It's also utterly unclear what Paul was referring to, as he used a word that isn't used elsewhere (EDIT: transliterated Greek - arsenokoitai )and was not any of the words used by ancient Greeks to refer to men who had homosexual sex. So no-one actually knows what he was referring to anyway.



Far more easily, I'd say, because it's a collection of books selected from a far larger collection of writings and passed through one or more translations.



It's the literal translation of the oldest extant Hebrew version, which is the oldest extant version. You were talking about the literal meaning - that is the literal meaning. What did the person who wrote it more than two millenia ago intend it to mean? Nobody really knows.



i) The KJV is from 1611. It is not the latest translation, not by a long chalk. You've given a modern English version of it (bar 'lieth', which is an anachronism in this context).

ii) What makes you think that the latest translation of something must be accurate?



i) It's Jewish, not Christian.
ii) It's not a correct translation.
iii) It's not advocated by Christians.
iv) Christianity allows for an assertion that the Christian bible isn't the word of god anyway.

So it's not the same situation as with the Quran.

Incidentally, why is 'Quran' now the preferred transliteration? It doesn't make sense in English, so it's a pretty poor transliteration into English.



i) It has only a few dozen members, nearly all (all?) of whom are from the same family.

ii) It has been formally disowned, not just denounced. It is not recognised as a valid church at all.

iii) It is not running countries.

So, again, it is not a valid comparison. And you would be hard pressed to find Christians advocating the death penalty for homosexuality.



I'm sure there are neo-Nazi and other far-right groups who do so, but this is about religion. So I'd like you to substantiate your claim and provide examples of many Christian groups who advocate the death penalty for homosexuality.



Since I haven't made a mistake, I am hardly likely to admit to this mistake I haven't made.

So...how do you personally get around the direct commands from god for torture and death that are in the Quran without saying that the Quran is wrong?

To pick just one example, An-Nur 24: 2

For an Islamic discussion on it:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548032

Note that isn't an unsual or extreme position. An extreme position would define zina far more widely, as Mohammed himself went as far as defining it to be even thinking about sex outside marriage.

As usual you have completely missed the entire point. The original text is this. וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תֹּועֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מֹ֥ות יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃

This does not translate literaly into "And with a man you shall not lay lyings of a woman" in fact it translates literally as "And if a man lieth with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." according to every single scholarly translation. "layings" doesnt even have a hebrew equivalent anyway so cant be translated to a literal meaning. Google translate really doesnt work for this kind of thing so quit using it.

I am not going to get into a quote for quote debate about the Bible verse Quran as we will be here all day. Sufice to say extreme views can be found in the old and new testament, Leviticus, Corinthians, Paul, Luke. Just google it and you will see.

I have given some links in previous posts which will explain the interpretations of the Quran by different Islamic groups such as shia, sunni,and so on. If it was the literal word of God that all must obey and that all muslims took this literally then there would be no debate within islam istself would there?

you have made a mistake with your translation, and the understanding of the original post which was more to do with extreme interpretation of the Quran and Bible and not whether there are more extremist in one or the other.


As for Christians only following the New Testament: Matthew 23:1-3 "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' so Jesus tell christians to follow the old testament, just not what the Pharisees are telling them at that time.

See for full explanation: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ot.htm.

Remember its all about interpretation and you can interpret anything in any way given enough leeway.

 

[Gaidin109]

I'm sure there are neo-Nazi and other far-right groups who do so, but this is about religion. So I'd like you to substantiate your claim and provide examples of many Christian groups who advocate the death penalty for homosexuality.

Christian Seniors Association, Westboro Baptist Church, Sons of Freedom, Lords Resistance Army, Lambs of Christ, The Covenant, the sword and the arm of Christ. The White Eagles (who I fought against in Bosnia, so I wouldnt go there), are or were all extreme Christian groups, who used bible scripture to defend their terrorism and extreme views. I agree Islam is easier for the Fundamentalists to mis use due to the Jihadi part of the Quran, but it is mis-use. The majority of Muslims do not follow the form of Jihad that the Extremists do. There is a greater and lesser Jihad and much debate in Islam over what means what.

I think what we will see in the near future is a schism within Islam between these two belief structures much like christianity has gone through on several occasion. Remember Islam is a somewhat younger religion than either Judaism or Christianity, which can be argued to be an offshoot of judaism in the first place.


Finally on this subject, I don't think any religion supports extremism. It seems that in whatever religion you care to name, there are followers who interpret the teachings in a way to suit themselves.

 

[Tefal]

Yeah, that guy put gays to death. Muhammed would be proud.

Amazing.


Muslim threatens to kill random civilians without ever doing it = horrible scum.


Bnp member kills blacks, Asians and babies = quickly laughed off and dismissed.



:/

 

[Strife212]

Why do the protest here? Theres no reason except to anger people.

 

[Fenris]

What strikes me as the worst part of their argument is this.

They claim they have the right to do this because of "free speech" yet their entire plan is to REMOVE that right if they gain power, anyone who speaks out against them or Islam will be, who knows, put to death? locked up?

It's sickening.

 

[Naff8000]

It's funny how they act all diplomatic with a name like islam4uk

 

[Angilion]

This does not translate literaly into "And with a man you shall not lay lyings of a woman" in fact it translates literally as "And if a man lieth with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." according to every single scholarly translation. "layings" doesnt even have a hebrew equivalent anyway so cant be translated to a literal meaning. Google translate really doesnt work for this kind of thing so quit using it.

Oh yes, of course I used Google translate, reknowned worldwide for its accuracy.

It can't even translate between two quite closely related languages without usually making a mess of it, so no-one uses it for anything other than having a laugh or getting a rough idea of the meaning. Your rolleyes just makes it sillier.

The KJV (which you quote above) is not a literal translation of the Hebrew. Literal translations between dissimilar languages are rarely so clear.

If anyone else reads this and cares, I suggest they try to find out for themself, and not by reading traditional medieval interpretations or the rewriting of them in modern English.

 

[Angilion]

Why do the protest here? Theres no reason except to anger people.

Exactly. As someone pointed out much earlier, it's a real-world example of trolling.

It also serves the purpose of gaining a lot of publicity.

It also allows them to portray themselves as victims, which increases their power.

 

[Angilion]

Christian Seniors Association, Westboro Baptist Church, Sons of Freedom, Lords Resistance Army, Lambs of Christ, The Covenant, the sword and the arm of Christ. The White Eagles (who I fought against in Bosnia, so I wouldnt go there), are or were all extreme Christian groups, who used bible scripture to defend their terrorism and extreme views.

Has anyone else here heard of any of those?

I agree Islam is easier for the Fundamentalists to mis use due to the Jihadi part of the Quran, but it is mis-use. The majority of Muslims do not follow the form of Jihad that the Extremists do. There is a greater and lesser Jihad and much debate in Islam over what means what.

True, but not particularly relevant. The majority of Christians in Europe centuries ago weren't members of the Inquisition. Did that stop European countries, British countries and Ireland becoming theocracies or close to it? Did it stop the Inquisitions or the witch hunts?

I think what we will see in the near future is a schism within Islam between these two belief structures much like christianity has gone through on several occasion.

Hopefully much less like it, because those schisms caused a lot of death and the effects linger to this day, centuries later.

Remember Islam is a somewhat younger religion than either Judaism or Christianity, which can be argued to be an offshoot of judaism in the first place.

As could Islam, though not as obviously.

Finally on this subject, I don't think any religion supports extremism. It seems that in whatever religion you care to name, there are followers who interpret the teachings in a way to suit themselves.

Whereas I think most, if not all, religions support extremism and the Abrahamic ones all the more so.

 

[Gaidin109]

Oh yes, of course I used Google translate, reknowned worldwide for its accuracy.

It can't even translate between two quite closely related languages without usually making a mess of it, so no-one uses it for anything other than having a laugh or getting a rough idea of the meaning. Your rolleyes just makes it sillier.

The KJV (which you quote above) is not a literal translation of the Hebrew. Literal translations between dissimilar languages are rarely so clear.

If anyone else reads this and cares, I suggest they try to find out for themself, and not by reading traditional medieval interpretations or the rewriting of them in modern English.

Wrong again.

Youngs translation of leviticus 20:13 is this "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.", Robert Young made strict literal translations from the original Hebrew and Greek texts when he translated the Bible.

Links: Youngs Literal Translation of Leviticus:

http://yltbible.com/leviticus/20.htm

Youngs Literal Translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation.

"And with a man you shall not lay lyings of a woman" as the literal translation, how ridiculous can you get. This proves that you do not know what you are talking about, or you just refuse to accept you are wrong. Either way it compromises your entire thread.

 

[Gaidin109]

Has anyone else here heard of any of those?

I hadnt heard of Islam4uk until the other day, so irrelevent.

True, but not particularly relevant. The majority of Christians in Europe centuries ago weren't members of the Inquisition. Did that stop European countries, British countries and Ireland becoming theocracies or close to it? Did it stop the Inquisitions or the witch hunts?

The Inquisition was centred around spain, Britain did not participate, the church of england burnt alleged witches, but that was under puritans, not catholic inquistors. Britain was a feudal state not a theocracy.

Hopefully much less like it, because those schisms caused a lot of death and the effects linger to this day, centuries later.

Not all did.

As could Islam, though not as obviously.

Islam is a Mohammean Religion, Judaism and Christianity are Abrahamic ones.

Whereas I think most, if not all, religions support extremism and the Abrahamic ones all the more so.

You support that Judaism and Christianity are more liable to extremism than Islam? that is the opposite from everything you have been asserting as facts. Words fail me. Again you show you dont know what you are talking about.
Before you accuse me of making it up, it states above "Abrahamic ones more so" support extremism.

 

[Angilion]

I can post links too:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

If you can read ancient Hebrew yourself (which might be true) and if I trusted you (which is not true), I'd take your word for it. But I don't.

 

[Gaidin109]

I can post links too:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

If you can read ancient Hebrew yourself (which might be true) and if I trusted you (which is not true), I'd take your word for it. But I don't.

LOL...that website supports my point of view, not yours.... Besides which Young's translation was literal, and he could read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

 

[Fenris]

Guys, if you want to debate the literal translations and possible interpretations of the bible and the quran, create a thread for it because at the moment this thread has turned into nothing but a willy waving contest between the two of you.

 

[Angilion]

I hadnt heard of Islam4uk until the other day, so irrelevent.

Not irrelevant - you say yourself you don't know if any of them still exist and I'm not going to take your word for it anyway. Why should I?

The Inquisition was centred around spain, Britain did not participate, the church of england burnt alleged witches, but that was under puritans, not catholic inquistors. Britain was a feudal state not a theocracy.

Execution in England was done by hanging. I am well aware that England didn't allow the Inquisition into England or Wales. I don't know about Scotland. England wasn't a theocracy, but the church had huge power.

Not all did.

True, not all schisms led to widespread suffering. It's not a good track record though, between the suppression of heresies and the outright wars.

Islam is a Mohammean Religion, Judaism and Christianity are Abrahamic ones.

Since you like Wikipedia, I chose that link from many:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Abraham

You support that Judaism and Christianity are more liable to extremism than Islam?

No. But at least this time you asked me for my opinion before making one up and claiming it was mine...

that is the opposite from everything you have been asserting as facts. Words fail me. Again you show you dont know what you are talking about.

...but of course you didn't really.

This is getting tiresome. Aren't you tired of fighting your strawman yet?

 

[Angilion]

LOL...that website supports my point of view, not yours....

So you didn't read it, you just skimmed a bit near the top (or didn't even look at it). Which I expected. That was part of the reason I chose that particular page.

 

[Gaidin109]

Not irrelevant - you say yourself you don't know if any of them still exist and I'm not going to take your word for it anyway. Why should I?



Execution in England was done by hanging. I am well aware that England didn't allow the Inquisition into England or Wales. I don't know about Scotland. England wasn't a theocracy, but the church had huge power.



True, not all schisms led to widespread suffering. It's not a good track record though, between the suppression of heresies and the outright wars.



Since you like Wikipedia, I chose that link from many:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Abraham



No. But at least this time you asked me for my opinion before making one up and claiming it was mine...



...but of course you didn't really.

This is getting tiresome. Aren't you tired of fighting your strawman yet?

Its your strawman mate. You say one thing but mean another. The Abrahmic quote is a good example of how you state something you later deny. You realise I am correct and you either say I am making it up, when the quote's are yours not mine, or you completely change your point of view without admitting you were wrong. You are mental. How can you have a sensible debate when you cant decide what you said or what you think.

 

[Gaidin109]

So you didn't read it, you just skimmed a bit near the top (or didn't even look at it). Which I expected. That was part of the reason I chose that particular page.

I did read it, and it states that leviticus like all Bible quotes can be interpreted in many ways dependent upon who is intrepreting it and why. Which has been my position all along. Still doesnt change the fact that youngs translation is the literal one and not your effort.

the Ontario Consultants of religious tolerance are not going to give literal meanings og any holy book as they are group the try to interpret the Bible and other Holy books to a more moderate and tolerant mode. so Irrelevant again