:
If they want to be good followers, yes, they're bound to read and listen to their holy books.
|
No interpretation allowed, then.
:
Of course, Manco, because any time I criticise Islam for it's bullshit it clearly means I hate Muslims and think they are bad people. Do you realise that you are arguing the exact same point that I am? Religious people decide which rules they follow and which ones they don't, which negates all the rules altogether, but that's besides the point.
You will find that in the middle east, people follow the Quran MUCH more closely than people in western countries follow the Bible.
Of course that is down to culture, but it doesn't excuse the fact that both books are reprehensible in their ideas, which is what the fuck we were discussing in the first place.
|
This entire argument is based around me saying:
:
No, certain interpretations of those religions are hostile, which is a completely different statement to make. One is a blanket condemnation of all followers of that religion, the other isn’t.
|
And then you and Varrok arguing against this. If we’re arguing the same point then you can agree that not all interpretations of Islam are bad, and therefore not all Muslims are bad.
But instead I’ve been told that all religion is hostile, and that differing interpretations has little bearing on that.
Can you not see how there is a difference between saying:
- That an entire religion is hostile
and
- That specific interpretations of a religion are hostile?
One of these statements is a blanket accusation against all followers of that religion, the other acknowledges that some followers of the religion are hostile and others are not. Which do you agree with, because so far all I’ve heard in this thread are arguments in favor of the first?
:
Don't give me any of this fucking "you just hate Muslims!" bullshit because it doesn't work on me.
|
Sure, I forgot that you just hate everyone regardless of reason.