Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: fr_freak
I hope you don't actually believe that. The context doesn't support replacement meanings in anything but the most liberal thinking. "Superior or comparable" does not give latitude to first say "Jews and Christians shall share in the Lord's reward" on the one hand, then later say "any religion other than Islam will never be accepted by God." (that's paraphrased, but relates directly to an actual example -- anybody wanna serve a God free to change his mind on a whim to that degree??).

If I am performing an edit to use 'superior' wording, then it's to nuance the meaning, not change it -- otherwise my entire credibility is at risk... which is entirely my point. If I say "Ramadan begins at sundown" and then later say "Ramadan begins at sundown at Mecca", then that's an example of a change for superior wording. It likewise still has comparable meaning. That's the kind of context involved here. But go through the links cited above in the original article. That's clearly not what's happening here. For a religion that prides itself on accuracy, this is a farce.

I'll tell you exactly what the Muslims would do with this, though: the existence of these redacted passages allow them to quote really nice sounding words and say "we are a religion of peace" while knowing that they have no standing whatsoever. You see, there's another principle of Islam also at work here: you can lie through your teeth about what Islam teaches if it would advance the cause.

30 posted on 10/18/2010 5:11:36 AM PDT by alancarp (Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: alancarp
I hope you don't actually believe that. The context doesn't support replacement meanings in anything but the most liberal thinking. "Superior or comparable" does not give latitude to first say "Jews and Christians shall share in the Lord's reward" on the one hand, then later say "any religion other than Islam will never be accepted by God."

This has nothing to do with what I believe - I'm not a Muslim. The point of the article, and my point, as well, was that the author of the Koran set it up so that he could change stuff at will and demand that muslims still believe it. In my opinion, that alone would make this religion and this book completely invalid, but we're not talking about me or my opinion. We're talking about how the Koran is a book full of lies. Well, this method of replacing old passages with "superior" ones is exactly how people can tell the lie of the Koran calling for peace when it really calls for death and slaughter. Your first post was ambiguous in that I couldn't tell if you were defending the wording or refuting it.
33 posted on 10/18/2010 2:53:34 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson