Second Amendment rights exercised in Orlando

You can write all you want about the Koran, and help people to understand what it says.

You can't change what it says.

 

Look, Christians believe that God sent his only son, to institute a New Covenant with humanity.

He amended the deal.

Muslims believe that Mohammad was the final Prophet, and through him, Allah made the final adjustments to the deal.

There is no amendment process is Islam. It's the final deal.

 

GrandMaQuant would have snapped a cap if you told her it wasn't the inerrant word of God ... and she'd have snapped said cap while gnawing on some fine country ham.

 

So you admit that your previous assertion about interpretation of the Koran not being allowed was incorrect?

 

Interpretation is an awfully slippery word there ...

 

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Pope John Paul II mentioned Leviticus 30 years ago.

 

So is motivation.

 

No. People help others to understand what it says.

But, if by "interpret" it, you mean, read into it something that is not there, or to give something a different meaning, no, they can't interpret it.

This isn't like where the Supreme Court can rule that there is some Constitutional right to privacy, that allows for abortion. The SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution the way it sees fit.

Muslims must read the Koran the same way Scalia read the constitution. To be a Muslim is to be a literalist as far as the Koran is concerned.

 

Yeah, I know.

And, nothing against Granny, but by definition, her Bible was a translation of a translation. Kind of hard for that to be literal.

That's why the Koran isn't supposed to be translated.

 

Hmmm, you better tell Muslims they don't understand their own faith then ...

A consistent feature of Quranic interpretation throughout the last fifteen hundred years of Islamic history has been its multiplicity of interpretations. Even the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), who learned Islam directly from the Prophet, who received divine guidance, understood the Qur’an in different ways. Scholars have made no attempt to limit or restrict the number of interpretations that could exist. Every human being will bring his/her own background to his/her reading of the Qur’an. Muslim or non-Muslim, poor or rich, male or female, child or adult, black or white, every human being will read the Qur’an based upon his or her beliefs, education, conditioning, culture and a variety of other factors. Further, as a message that addresses all of humanity, the Quran allows room for a myriad of readings, as long as they do not conflict the Qur’an’s main principles. It is therefore impossible to impose a single authoritative reading upon the Qur’an without violating the Qur’an’s own description of itself as universal and for all people.

The Mosque in Morgantown

 

Yes...

Do you want to show me how this means that John Paul II declared that Catholics are bound by Leviticus?

Or, should I just skip ahead?

Maybe I could just ask you to quote what he says.

If you did quote JPII, you would see that he mentions Leviticus as part of providing background. Does he mention it in his conclusion?

Well, let's look at what he says:

7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

John Paul II clearly says that is Jesus we must follow, not Leviticus. He labels homosexual sexuality as extra-marital, and therefore immoral.

It's almost like he would find any extra-marital sexual activity to be immoral.

 

Robertson: Gay Rights Advocates Should 'Shut Their Mouth'

Pat Robertson refers to Leviticus in reference to homosexuality. Claims it's moral law.

But nobody refers to its restrictions and all Christian denominations ignore it.