Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/18 14:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

On 05/03/18 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:

SWMBO's degree is in Maths and Theology. She would remind you that
since originally written, the contents have been copied and translated
a number of times. Only a fool would assume that was done without error
or changing the meaning or actual words used. Anyone who says it is
literally true is a dope or fanatic.


Problem is: there are a lot of fanatics.

The Koran is a particularly interesting case as it was supposed to have
been given verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel, so as long as you're
reading in the original Arabic, it is claimed by many to be flawless (as
far as I understand).

So's the Pope supposed to be infallible.

"Papal infallibility" - yes, and it leads to nonsense like "no
contraception" (I have read the actual source of that and it makes no sense)

Some of the book known as the
Koran is the flawless bit (also I think possibly called the Koran just
to confuse us) but much of it is much less flawless stuff,

Are you confusing the Koran with the hadiths? The latter came some time
later and not all are accepted by all denominations.

AIUI, which is not very much, the book people cart around and gets
quoted from contains lots of hadiths as well as the actual text of the
Koran. As with Christianity, there are a lot of even less popular
hadiths that didn't make the cut.




and some of
the bits quoted by the fascists just to show how bad it is are
none-infallible bits.

It is hardly "fascist" to be a critical thinker and to take exception to
any ideological text and you're in danger of Godwin-ing this thread by
such ridiculous statements.

You also miss the rather over arching point that some fanatics will
follow any edict or text quite happily if they are convinced it comes
from someone with "authority" (same as the papal bulls), so the precise
authorship of any ideological text is not hugely relevant.


--

Roger Hayter