First

The assumptions I presented were based on what I believed YOU were thinking. That "because" you say the bible is corrupt... and "because" you know discussing it in the forum causes arguments and "because" you believe discussing the Qu'ran in the forum would cause arguments it means you know (but wont admit) the Qu'ran is the same as the Bible in respect ot its content being correct.

Its called "logic" and its quite a simple thing to grasp


Second

I don't know much about lamb chops... but if someone told me that they could fly I wouldn't HAVE to know about them to know when something is not truth.

That is what logic is about. You don't understand the Bible and yet you quite happily comment on it and say it is corrupted.

When they are you allowed to comment on something else you do not understand... and yet people cannot comment on yours if they don't understand????

That is hypocritical.

Third

I couldn't convince you of a contradiction if I tried. You provided hundreds of contradictions to VVB but did he believe any of them??? Of course not. He had an answer to explain every one of them so why would you be any different?

The fact you begin this discussion with the axiom of belief that the Qu'ran is 100% absolutely correct means you would not see truth if it was presented with you... because in order to see that truth you would have to change your axiom that the Qu'ran is absolutely correct.

Frankly that doesn't happen. You are no different from VVB in this sense.

BTW, as a note. I have heard another excuse as to why certain things "appear" as contradictions in the Bible... the speaker said that the Bible is not necessarily written chronologically but thematically, meaning that some verses may be out of sync and thus "appear" that something happened before the other and then in another verse happened after.

Of course I find this convenient once again... always some excuse, always some quick remedy that didn't exist before the question was asked.

Forth

I wouldn't be stupid enough to follow popular media in believing that you beat your women etc, etc...

I do however understand perfectly well that your women are kept dressed from head to toe so that they are protected from being raped by men. Correct me if I am wrong but its a case of "If men can't see then they can't want".


If this is true (notice I said IF) then that makes me wonder why it is a religion would cover up women rather than deal with the wanton urges of men instead? Why provide a remedy than actually solve the problem that causes it?

What then is the problem with taking a single "law" and exploring it?

Take the Alcohol thing for example.... If you provide us with the exact verses that talk about it and then explain your view of it we can all openly discuss it and ask questions that you answer. How then will that cause an argument unless of course you are unwilling to see if/when we pull up a flaw?

I already stated that asprin, chocolate and even vitamins would be considered to alter your normal state. If I am in error in saying this then enlighten me, explain it and correct this error.

Once again I can see your only reason for wishing to talk privately so that if you fail, nobody else will know you failed and your beloved book will not be "tarnished" because only a single person proved you wrong.

If this is not the reason then DISCUSS IT HERE.

Someone who thinks something is absolutely 100% truth wouldn't be so reluctant.

Your actions don't match your words.

Sorry... but that is how I see it.