Today I'm angry about.....

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm still never sure why "interpretations" of the Quran (Koran) are constantly used to justify acts that are decidedly against its basics. This, in proportion rarely happens with the Bible. An old and well worn chestnut granted, but it's so convenient to quote scripture and wrangle it around to justify acts that are so very obviously about greed, wealth and power and nothing about deities, that they are the very contra of "Love they neighbour, What doth it profit a man..etc" that are the purely earthy interpretations of something decidedly heavenly? Neither the Quran or the Bible are solely about Aramaic language, the middle east or even Christianity (which, as has been stated was in evidence many years before Islam) or are confined to the deserts, camels and palm trees, but worldwide (along with all other faiths) and translated into every dialect under the sun.
In a religion so well steeped in antiquity, what place have bombs and rocket launchers amongst it all and where is the peaceful religion claim? Hipocricy seems to be a relevant part though? .

I shall, through gritted teeth, tell you that the Bible and the Koran, although rooted through the monotheistic Hebrew culture (the Torah), are completely different.
The Torah and Bible are syncretic, the Quran isn't. When you say that interpretations are against its basics you are wrong. The interpretations are basic and unavoidable.

How is the Torah syncretic? (serious question).

[Hoboh]

Project fear!

Police spokesperson says 10000 officers are on standby to police riots if they happen over Brexit, well what about feral youth running amok with knives, were the fcuk are these 10000 or is killing people okay?
Sending in the troops, another Peterloo then? Bullshit of the highest order, mind then again what more could we expect from the worst PM in living memory allied to Bob Marley's backing group!

[TANGODANCER]

In a religion so well steeped in antiquity, what place have bombs and rocket launchers amongst it all and where is the peaceful religion claim? Hipocricy seems to be a relevant part though? .

I shall, through gritted teeth, tell you that the Bible and the Koran, although rooted through the monotheistic Hebrew culture (the Torah), are completely different.The Torah and Bible are syncretic, the Quran isn't. When you say that interpretations are against its basics you are wrong. The interpretations are basic and unavoidable.[/quote]

I think you'll note the word "claim" Spots. The opposite is very much in evidence, but that's the interpretations of man again at work in any and all religions. Somewhere amongst it all (if you are religious...I know you're not so I speak generally) you have to focus beyond any earthly influences and just deal with head office. In that respect, rightly or wrongly, you decide your own fate. All the "syncretics" and other earthly descriptions really have nothing to do with any of it if you're going to ignore the basics.. Man is always the villain, not God.

Amen.

[Harry Genshaw]

Well it was a week ago so I'm not angry anymore but this happened last weekend;

My elderly parents were shopping in Westhoughton last Saturday when my dad tripped over a raised kerb stone and took the full impact to his face and head.

Thankfully one of the local shop assistants saw this and took him a chair outside and then rang for an ambulance.

My dad, 81, bleeding heavily from his head by this stage, sat in the chair with my mum, 80 stood at his side.

The shop assistant had to ring the ambulance service 4 times. After 2 hours, with my dad still bleeding heavily, my mum frozen stiff & no sign of the ambulance they made the decision to go back to the car and he drove himself to hospital with head injury and smashed glasses to see out of.

I'm sure the ambulance service did all they could to send one of their few vehicles to his aid, & I'm aware that austerity measures have consequences but it's still a shock to see that as a nation we have come to this.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well it was a week ago so I'm not angry anymore but this happened last weekend;

My elderly parents were shopping in Westhoughton last Saturday when my dad tripped over a raised kerb stone and took the full impact to his face and head.

Thankfully one of the local shop assistants saw this and took him a chair outside and then rang for an ambulance.

My dad, 81, bleeding heavily from his head by this stage, sat in the chair with my mum, 80 stood at his side.

The shop assistant had to ring the ambulance service 4 times. After 2 hours, with my dad still bleeding heavily, my mum frozen stiff & no sign of the ambulance they made the decision to go back to the car and he drove himself to hospital with head injury and smashed glasses to see out of.

I'm sure the ambulance service did all they could to send one of their few vehicles to his aid, & I'm aware that austerity measures have consequences but it's still a shock to see that as a nation we have come to this.

I do agree. It's wrong. But, it comes to this when dickheads ring up the ambulance service to get them home having done the Saturday shopping and feel a little fatigued. Just heard that conversation (the actual 999 call) from a bunch of well known local chavs...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm still never sure why "interpretations" of the Quran (Koran) are constantly used to justify acts that are decidedly against its basics. This, in proportion rarely happens with the Bible. An old and well worn chestnut granted, but it's so convenient to quote scripture and wrangle it around to justify acts that are so very obviously about greed, wealth and power and nothing about deities, that they are the very contra of "Love they neighbour, What doth it profit a man..etc" that are the purely earthy interpretations of something decidedly heavenly? Neither the Quran or the Bible are solely about Aramaic language, the middle east or even Christianity (which, as has been stated was in evidence many years before Islam) or are confined to the deserts, camels and palm trees, but worldwide (along with all other faiths) and translated into every dialect under the sun.
In a religion so well steeped in antiquity, what place have bombs and rocket launchers amongst it all and where is the peaceful religion claim? Hipocricy seems to be a relevant part though? .

I shall, through gritted teeth, tell you that the Bible and the Koran, although rooted through the monotheistic Hebrew culture (the Torah), are completely different.
The Torah and Bible are syncretic, the Quran isn't. When you say that interpretations are against its basics you are wrong. The interpretations are basic and unavoidable.

How is the Torah syncretic? (serious question).

Because it wasn't written by one author and was written over a period of time, and the sources were not from the same community.
Like the Quran it has been edited down to appear syncretic, but, like the Quran, it clearly isn't.
The difference is that Judaism isn't premised on the fact of pure transmission from God (note the various prophets), whereas Islam is, and fundamentally so...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm still never sure why "interpretations" of the Quran (Koran) are constantly used to justify acts that are decidedly against its basics. This, in proportion rarely happens with the Bible. An old and well worn chestnut granted, but it's so convenient to quote scripture and wrangle it around to justify acts that are so very obviously about greed, wealth and power and nothing about deities, that they are the very contra of "Love they neighbour, What doth it profit a man..etc" that are the purely earthy interpretations of something decidedly heavenly? Neither the Quran or the Bible are solely about Aramaic language, the middle east or even Christianity (which, as has been stated was in evidence many years before Islam) or are confined to the deserts, camels and palm trees, but worldwide (along with all other faiths) and translated into every dialect under the sun.
In a religion so well steeped in antiquity, what place have bombs and rocket launchers amongst it all and where is the peaceful religion claim? Hipocricy seems to be a relevant part though? .

I shall, through gritted teeth, tell you that the Bible and the Koran, although rooted through the monotheistic Hebrew culture (the Torah), are completely different.
The Torah and Bible are syncretic, the Quran isn't. When you say that interpretations are against its basics you are wrong. The interpretations are basic and unavoidable.

How is the Torah syncretic? (serious question).

Because it wasn't written by one author and was written over a period of time, and the sources were not from the same community.
Like the Quran it has been edited down to appear syncretic, but, like the Quran, it clearly isn't.
The difference is that Judaism isn't premised on the fact of pure transmission from God (note the various prophets), whereas Islam is, and fundamentally so...

I understood syncretism was the combining of two or more systems of religious belief into one system. It seemed to me that Islam in accepting both the old testament and the new adding to them the Word of God to Mohammed is historically syncretic, while Judaism was not. Still these are deeper waters than I am comfortable in.

On your argument about interpretation, I think that some Muslim dogma is interpretation not based on the Quran. For example having women cover their face. The Quran says that when you visit Mohammed there must be a curtain (hijab) between you and them. This was later interpreted by some sects as all women should wear a veil, which strikes me as a bit of a stretch and certainly not an unavoidable interpretation. I don't think the several Mrs. Mohammeds were required to wear a veil - they just had to stay behind the curtain when visitors came (but I could be wrong here).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm still never sure why "interpretations" of the Quran (Koran) are constantly used to justify acts that are decidedly against its basics. This, in proportion rarely happens with the Bible. An old and well worn chestnut granted, but it's so convenient to quote scripture and wrangle it around to justify acts that are so very obviously about greed, wealth and power and nothing about deities, that they are the very contra of "Love they neighbour, What doth it profit a man..etc" that are the purely earthy interpretations of something decidedly heavenly? Neither the Quran or the Bible are solely about Aramaic language, the middle east or even Christianity (which, as has been stated was in evidence many years before Islam) or are confined to the deserts, camels and palm trees, but worldwide (along with all other faiths) and translated into every dialect under the sun.
In a religion so well steeped in antiquity, what place have bombs and rocket launchers amongst it all and where is the peaceful religion claim? Hipocricy seems to be a relevant part though? .

I shall, through gritted teeth, tell you that the Bible and the Koran, although rooted through the monotheistic Hebrew culture (the Torah), are completely different.
The Torah and Bible are syncretic, the Quran isn't. When you say that interpretations are against its basics you are wrong. The interpretations are basic and unavoidable.

How is the Torah syncretic? (serious question).

Because it wasn't written by one author and was written over a period of time, and the sources were not from the same community.
Like the Quran it has been edited down to appear syncretic, but, like the Quran, it clearly isn't.
The difference is that Judaism isn't premised on the fact of pure transmission from God (note the various prophets), whereas Islam is, and fundamentally so...

I understood syncretism was the combining of two or more systems of religious belief into one system. It seemed to me that Islam in accepting both the old testament and the new adding to them the Word of God to Mohammed is historically syncretic, while Judaism was not. Still these are deeper waters than I am comfortable in.

On your argument about interpretation, I think that some Muslim dogma is interpretation not based on the Quran. For example having women cover their face. The Quran says that when you visit Mohammed there must be a curtain (hijab) between you and them. This was later interpreted by some sects as all women should wear a veil, which strikes me as a bit of a stretch and certainly not an unavoidable interpretation. I don't think the several Mrs. Mohammeds were required to wear a veil - they just had to stay behind the curtain when visitors came (but I could be wrong here).

You are wrong there.
There is an entire chapter on dress. On what is halal and what is haram. It states for example that men should not have trousers that cover their ankles - please note photos of Islamic fighters with ridiculously high cuffs on their western style keks showing off their nikes.
But, once again, the Arabic for the constraint for women to "be modest, to cover their hair" and the interdict for women "not to go uncovered amongst their 'unkin'" is hardly for the fainthearted, nor the non-Arabic scholar.

But, essentially, why am I arguing!
What's the point about trying to argue against somebody who state that something is reasonable when it clearly isn't?
I don't spend hours at a time argueing with dickheads that the Earth is not flat.
If, however, there were a billion tits arguing that, and their more fundamental wing were killing people for not believing the Earth was flat, and half the stupid fxckers were having a war with the other half over whether the flat Earth was circular or square... then I'd be calling those fxckers out for being murderous stupid tits also...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm still never sure why "interpretations" of the Quran (Koran) are constantly used to justify acts that are decidedly against its basics. This, in proportion rarely happens with the Bible. An old and well worn chestnut granted, but it's so convenient to quote scripture and wrangle it around to justify acts that are so very obviously about greed, wealth and power and nothing about deities, that they are the very contra of "Love they neighbour, What doth it profit a man..etc" that are the purely earthy interpretations of something decidedly heavenly? Neither the Quran or the Bible are solely about Aramaic language, the middle east or even Christianity (which, as has been stated was in evidence many years before Islam) or are confined to the deserts, camels and palm trees, but worldwide (along with all other faiths) and translated into every dialect under the sun.
In a religion so well steeped in antiquity, what place have bombs and rocket launchers amongst it all and where is the peaceful religion claim? Hipocricy seems to be a relevant part though? .

I shall, through gritted teeth, tell you that the Bible and the Koran, although rooted through the monotheistic Hebrew culture (the Torah), are completely different.
The Torah and Bible are syncretic, the Quran isn't. When you say that interpretations are against its basics you are wrong. The interpretations are basic and unavoidable.

How is the Torah syncretic? (serious question).

Because it wasn't written by one author and was written over a period of time, and the sources were not from the same community.
Like the Quran it has been edited down to appear syncretic, but, like the Quran, it clearly isn't.
The difference is that Judaism isn't premised on the fact of pure transmission from God (note the various prophets), whereas Islam is, and fundamentally so...

I understood syncretism was the combining of two or more systems of religious belief into one system. It seemed to me that Islam in accepting both the old testament and the new adding to them the Word of God to Mohammed is historically syncretic, while Judaism was not. Still these are deeper waters than I am comfortable in.

On your argument about interpretation, I think that some Muslim dogma is interpretation not based on the Quran. For example having women cover their face. The Quran says that when you visit Mohammed there must be a curtain (hijab) between you and them. This was later interpreted by some sects as all women should wear a veil, which strikes me as a bit of a stretch and certainly not an unavoidable interpretation. I don't think the several Mrs. Mohammeds were required to wear a veil - they just had to stay behind the curtain when visitors came (but I could be wrong here).

You are wrong there.
There is an entire chapter on dress. On what is halal and what is haram. It states for example that men should not have trousers that cover their ankles - please note photos of Islamic fighters with ridiculously high cuffs on their western style keks showing off their nikes.
But, once again, the Arabic for the constraint for women to "be modest, to cover their hair" and the interdict for women "not to go uncovered amongst their 'unkin'" is hardly for the fainthearted, nor the non-Arabic scholar.

But, essentially, why am I arguing!
What's the point about trying to argue against somebody who state that something is reasonable when it clearly isn't?
I don't spend hours at a time argueing with dickheads that the Earth is not flat.
If, however, there were a billion tits arguing that, and their more fundamental wing were killing people for not believing the Earth was flat, and half the stupid fxckers were having a war with the other half over whether the flat Earth was circular or square... then I'd be calling those fxckers out for being murderous stupid tits also...

Just in case the message got lost in the translation.
What I'm saying is that Islam is ridiculous. Allah does not exist. And I'm sick and fxcking tired of Muslims murdering people over their sick fantasies. Anybody who spouts the nonsense that is Islam is just as culpable as those who do the slaughter (whether they pull the trigger, plant the bomb, wield the sword, or just spread the word...)

[TANGODANCER]

You are wrong there.
There is an entire chapter on dress. On what is halal and what is haram. It states for example that men should not have trousers that cover their ankles - please note photos of Islamic fighters with ridiculously high cuffs on their western style keks showing off their nikes.
But, once again, the Arabic for the constraint for women to "be modest, to cover their hair" and the interdict for women "not to go uncovered amongst their 'unkin'" is hardly for the fainthearted, nor the non-Arabic scholar.

Have a look at:

1 Corinthians 11:3–16

This obviously doesn't include the yoof ( and older) who turn up at weddings, Christenings etc wearing sideways on and back to front baseball caps in church. My mother never went to church without a hat or headscarf and my father always removed his hat on entering one.

[Montreal Wanderer]

You are wrong there.
There is an entire chapter on dress. On what is halal and what is haram. It states for example that men should not have trousers that cover their ankles - please note photos of Islamic fighters with ridiculously high cuffs on their western style keks showing off their nikes.
But, once again, the Arabic for the constraint for women to "be modest, to cover their hair" and the interdict for women "not to go uncovered amongst their 'unkin'" is hardly for the fainthearted, nor the non-Arabic scholar.

Have a look at:

1 Corinthians 11:3–16

This obviously doesn't include the yoof ( and older) who turn up at weddings, Christenings etc wearing sideways on and back to front baseball caps in church. My mother never went to church without a hat or headscarf and my father always removed his hat on entering one.

My mother always wore a head covering of one sort or another when going out anywhere - if it was just shopping a head scarf would do, a hat for fancier occasions.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

You are wrong there.
There is an entire chapter on dress. On what is halal and what is haram. It states for example that men should not have trousers that cover their ankles - please note photos of Islamic fighters with ridiculously high cuffs on their western style keks showing off their nikes.
But, once again, the Arabic for the constraint for women to "be modest, to cover their hair" and the interdict for women "not to go uncovered amongst their 'unkin'" is hardly for the fainthearted, nor the non-Arabic scholar.

Have a look at:

1 Corinthians 11:3–16

This obviously doesn't include the yoof ( and older) who turn up at weddings, Christenings etc wearing sideways on and back to front baseball caps in church. My mother never went to church without a hat or headscarf and my father always removed his hat on entering one.

My mother always wore a head covering of one sort or another when going out anywhere - if it was just shopping a head scarf would do, a hat for fancier occasions.

Have they murdered anybody recently about it?



I could take ten seconds and compose a sentence that would have over a billion people screaming abuse at me and demanding my death. Over words!
Islam is a pile of shit. So is Judaism. And Christianity.
The difference is, not which is the bigger pile of shit, but which is the most dangerous.
To put it bluntly, I'll put up with whatever Tango espouses because his coreligionists aren't calling for my death. Same with the Jews. And the Hindus.
It's not quite the same with Muslims, not matter how many you claim are fxcking peaceful.
As an Atheist I'm not calling for your death, I'm asking you to explore the ridiculous concepts you hold! And stop fxcking killing people because they haven't got a bag on their head and don't give a fxck what sexual predilection any ancient prophets may or may not have had...

[TANGODANCER]

And good morning/day to you too Spots.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And good morning/day to you too Spots.

Morning

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Conversation over text:
Where the fxck are you?
I'm leaving now.

No you fxcking aren't! You'll be leaving in 55 minutes. If you said 55 minutes I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be as totally fxcking pissed off as when you fxcking lie!

[Bruce Rioja]

Next person who thanks me for 'reaching out'. They can have some!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Next person who thanks me for 'reaching out'. They can have some!

Punch the fxckers before they can say anything. It's a new world out there...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Next person who thanks me for 'reaching out'. They can have some!

Punch the fxckers before they can say anything. It's a new world out there...

By the way, you're no longer hidden. Thanks for reaching out,

[Bruce Rioja]

Next person who thanks me for 'reaching out'. They can have some!

Punch the fxckers before they can say anything. It's a new world out there...

By the way, you're no longer hidden. Thanks for reaching out,

[Hoboh]

When oh when are they going to start using tear gas, rubber bullets and hire a couple of water cannons to shift the smelly deadbeats out of London?
I suppose they all walked down there and not like some of their celeb supporters used a jet from the USA that deposited 1.67 tonnes of co2 getting said prick here, but it's the only way of continental transport says her spokesperson!
School holidays, deadbeat students, kids, teachers and lecturers along with some dementia ex hippy, give them a good hosing down so folk can go about their normal lives.
No water cannon, yet another Threasa May cock up!