Egypt: Christian arrested for carrying water bottle during Ramadan

[roamer_1]

Thank you, @240B

There are many who claim all Muslims must be horrid because of what is written.  But as you say, that doesn't mean all adhere to what's written.

@Suppressed
It isn't a lack of adherence - It is a lack of interpretation, or interpretation made in ignorance, as I tried to explain elsewhere.

The 'Unruly child' bit that @240B  used as an example is very good:

It cannot be a child as we consider a child... In interaction with the rest of Torah, it must be an adult child (or thereabouts). And the parent does not have the right to kill the child. There must still be a trial, and a conviction...

and last of all, the throwing of the first stone... All in the context of 'mercy' and 'doing right', and 'loving each other', as also commanded.

[musiclady]

@240B

Yes, but it remains in holy scripture.

So I guess what you're saying is that we can't judge a religion by their holy scripture.

Well, you certainly can't if you don't study it and understand it and use it as a weapon on a political forum where it doesn't apply.

Which is, of course, what you are doing here.   

[240B]

@Suppressed
It isn't a lack of adherence - It is a lack of interpretation, or interpretation made in ignorance, as I tried to explain elsewhere.

The 'Unruly child' bit that @240B  used as an example is very good:

It cannot be a child as we consider a child... In interaction with the rest of Torah, it must be an adult child (or thereabouts). And the parent does not have the right to kill the child. There must still be a trial, and a conviction...

and last of all, the throwing of the first stone... All in the context of 'mercy' and 'doing right', and 'loving each other', as also commanded.

This my last post on this because it is becoming a Biblical discussion and I don't want that. But speaking of interpretation, the Eye for an Eye quote that everyone like to point to is one of the most misunderstood passages in the OT. It did not mean revenge is required as many seem to think it does. Most Rabbis that I know say that it is about 'equal and just punishment'.

If someone knocks out one of your teeth, you are not allowed to kill him or his family, for example. The most you can do under scripture is to knock out one of his teeth, and that is it. No more than than that. And you are not required to do even that. You could forgive him and do nothing. But if you do demand revenge, the most you can do is to take one eye or one tooth.

I'm done. That's all I'm going to post before the thread gets locked.

[roamer_1]

This my last post on this because it is becoming a Biblical discussion and I don't want that. But speaking of interpretation, the Eye for an Eye quote that everyone like to point to is one of the most misunderstood passages in the OT. It did not mean revenge is required as many seem to think it does. Most Rabbis that I know say that it is about 'equal and just punishment'.

If someone knocks out one of your teeth, you are not allowed to kill him or his family, for example. The most you can do under scripture is to knock out one of his teeth, and that is it. No more than than that. And you are not required to do even that. You could forgive him and do nothing. But if you do demand revenge, the most you can do is to take one eye or one tooth.

I'm done. That's all I'm going to post before the thread gets locked.

We are in great agreement on that @240B ... And to get that vengeance, one must take the matter to the elders at the gate... Where cooler heads can prevail. I do not see a direct right to do harm anywhere in Torah, except in defense or in defense of others.

And you are right. My last intention to post too...

[Fishrrman]

islam.   (you'll notice I never capitalize it out of utter disrespect).
All it -- and those who adhere to it -- deserves is this: