Of course I'm not going to challenge them, that is the whole point of our previous discussion.
Right..."Let me post all these verses here, to demonstrate there is a problem with the Quran. Oh wait, now you've expanded these verses, and I won't challenge because that was never the point."
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
We can talk about interpretation all day, but in the end, we are going to see what we want.
No, in the end we are going to see what is there, if we actually look. This isn't about some, "Interpretation via emotional response" BS. This is, "Here's the actual text; here's what it actually says". If you want to say those five blocks of texts say something, tell me what they say. It is quite clear they say the following: God will punish some (maybe all) disbelievers in the Hereafter.
That is the whole problem (and danger) with using these texts as a guide to behavior. Call the Westboro nut jobs loonies all you want, but they are just as convinced into the legitimacy of their interpretations as someone else would be about theirs.
If you are equating "convinced of their own legitimacy" with legitimacy, then you are trading in fallacies. Sure, WBC is convinced their interpretation is legitimate. I can break down the text of the Bible in the same manner with them to show that their reading is not a coherent and legitimate reading of the text. Their conviction, then, is not a problem with the Bible, it's a problem with them.
In the end there is no objective contextual reading of what the text really means.
At the end of the day, there are coherent readings of texts and incoherent readings of texts. Incoherent readings are automatically ruled out as illegitimate, even if one is convinced their incoherent reading is legitimate. Now, there might be multiple coherent readings, and then the question of legitimate reading becomes more difficult. However, that does not rule out there being a single, legitimate reading; further, it does not rule out there being multiple legitimate readings.
Since you think they all drink from the same trough, go ahead and give is all a class on Plato and Adam Smith as well.
No thanks, but you've made it quite clear you have not read a single Adam Smith work in its entirety.
I'm not playing the futile interpretation game, I'm simply taking the words at face value.
No, you are playing a childish game of thinking that simply because a string of words appears within the much larger string of words that is the complete work, that smaller string of words can be used to define the entire work. That's not taking anything at "face value".
This is all 7th century nonsense, nothing more.
I'm not sure what the hell this even means. On its face, right, we are playing your silly "face value" game it appears to be a genetic fallacy. At least you are consistent in trading in the fallacious.
What does the qu'ran say about paradise, 72 virgins, gold, and rivers of honey? If it were written today it would be mansions and stock options.
The Quran actually says nothing about 72 virgins. Of course, this doesn't matter, right, because you really don't give a **** about what the Quran actually says, you just care about what non-sensical and unfounded accusations you can throw against it.
The bottom line line is most of us don't worry about the Jains hijacking the next plane like we do Islamic fundamentalist. I'm honest enough to say why that is, and not hide my head behind contextual reading of the text as the solution.
You're right, pure Jainism does not allow one to violently repel oppressors. The Quran explicitly allows such actions. And, in allowing such actions, it then has verses that can be taken out of context and exploited for political and power-hungry aims. So, where the impoverished and under-educated individual who grows up in a household in which they are instructed to obey Jainism, above all else, cannot be exploited to kill based on bull-****, out of context verses, the individual who grows up in a household in which he is taught to obey Allah and the word of the Quran can be exploited.
This points to one of the solutions: combat the bull-****, illegitimate reading of the Quran, so that reading cannot be used to exploit for power.
N.B. A curious example you cite, but one that we ought to be careful in making sure to realize that you do not support Jainism, nor anything approaching Jainism, since, if I remember correctly, you do some work in the weapons industry, correct? In fact, you think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill,not just animals and the smallest forms of life but to kill persons. Sure, you are going to place some qualifications around when that is acceptable, like maybe when said person or group of persons invades your territory, tries to force you out of your territory, persecutes you in certain ways, oppresses you, etc. Basically, your qualifications are not going to diverge that much, in principle, from the Quranic qualifications. However, there will be divergence in specifics, that is what tokens represent the oppressive type, etc.
If calling me dumb and intellectually challenged or whatever is what you are resorting to then I suspect this has become more about winning the argument than anything else. It doesn't bother me in the least. Carry on with this silliness if it makes you feel better.
Intellectually irresponsible...and dumb. It's not about winning and its not about victory over you. It's about combating the spread of misinformation, which is indirectly connected to you, since you are spreading this misinformation.
