Food for thought

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Since you love to bash Christianity and I like actual factual history. Here are some time lines relating to religion in general. I know you will go right around the facts but others reading might give some thought to when specific religions first started out and compare that to when those very same religions were causing unrest in the world. http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011106.html

I'm sorry, I have no clue what this timeline represents based on my previous post, which was about hypocrisy within a small yet vocal portion of the US Christian population.

Perhaps you mistook independent thought and an inquiring mind to be bashing, but I thought I was quite clear in my respect for the Gospels, while making what I feel is a valid argument.

Steel, once again, if you'd like to discuss this I'm happy to debate it rationally. It's not my place to try and change anyones mind, I would just like to detangle this perceived conflict of belief.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

W

If the Muslims want to not be seen as Violent...Then they need to turn against the extremists.

Some are, but more need to..

Which is somewhat ironic since it is 3 months to the day that I started writing to moderate christians, asking them to step forward and wrestle the public perception of their religion away from the violent bigotted nutjobs. no, not a joke. serious.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Since you love to bash Christianity and I like actual factual history. Here are some time lines relating to religion in general. I know you will go right around the facts but others reading might give some thought to when specific religions first started out and compare that to when those very same religions were causing unrest in the world. http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011106.html

Actually *I* am the one who likes to bash Christianity, and Islam, for that matter.

No criticism here, I love your posts--just tryin' to set the record straight.

Walt

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Since you love to bash Christianity and I like actual factual history

Then I would suggest studying history. Doing a search on google does not make you an historian. Read books, spend few years digesting them and cross referencing them, then get back to us. Your historical references have the amazing tendency to be constantly wrong.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Since you love to bash Christianity and I like actual factual history

Then I would suggest studying history. Doing a search on google does not make you an historian. Read books, spend few years digesting them and cross referencing them, then get back to us. Your historical references have the amazing tendency to be constantly wrong.

Although your sarcastic remarks are amusing, you still have not been able to disprove any of my facts. I think if you have issue with the facts in my posts. Then since they are indeed accurate perhaps, you are the one that had better get reading. I have a college degree and don't need to know exactly what year a French King took a crap in an Egyptian city by memory to understand world events. But apparently you do. enjoy

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Just like I would turn in a "Christian" that bombed an abortion clinic.

Sorry, just noticed the quote marks. Are you saying that as a mainstream Christian you believe that violent pro-lifers are not true Christians?

Do you think people outside of Christianity are able to make that distinction?

edited to fix question.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Just like I would turn in a "Christian" that bombed an abortion clinic.

Sorry, just noticed the quote marks. Are you saying that as a mainstream Christian you do not believe that violent pro-lifers are not true Christians?

Do you think people outside of Christianity are able to make that distinction?

From what I have read here, I believe Ron identifies himself as agnostic, as do I.
However, I have not ever seen any credible references that directly link a church to an abortion clinic bombing. I wish the same could be said about a Mosques but that would be totally false. One example off the top of my head without a google search is the first World trade center bombing in 1993. This attack was traced back to a Mosque in Jersey City, NJ.
The spin meisters here love to talk about the IRA. But anybody with the most miniscule knowledge about that conflict. {BTW in college, I wrote a 15 page paper with more than 5 sources on Michael Collins} knows that none of their attacks were funded by a Catholic church. The Catholic religion and the Church of England could not possibly get along better than they do. Also the Catholic church is very structured. Priest-Pastor-Bishop-Arch bishop-cardinal- Pope. Anybody who is not extremely ignorant about the conflict, knows it had nothing to do with religion so to cite that as Christian terrorism is just spin and jibberish.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Crap, sorry about that Ron. Getting names and positions on topics mixed up in my head.

So lets ignore the first part, and leave the second part: If a "christian" bombs a clinic are people outside of Christianity able to discern the difference?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Sorry, just noticed the quote marks. Are you saying that as a mainstream Christian you do not believe that violent pro-lifers are not true Christians?

I think that most who claim to be Christian are not even close to being Christians.

I never claimed to be Christian. I gave up on that long ago once I started to actually pay attention to the teachings and how on some things I was unwilling to even try to live the lifestyle.

Quote

Do you think people outside of Christianity are able to make that distinction?

I don't think many people INSIDE are able to make the distinction, much less outsiders.

I don't think religion should "change with the times". I don't think the Bible is "Subject to interpretation".

Therefore I am willing to change to follow the religion, nor am I willing to adapt the religion to fit my needs as some do, and still claim it is true.

So I do not call myself "Christian".

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Steel 0]

Quote

Crap, sorry about that Ron. Getting names and positions on topics mixed up in my head.

So lets ignore the first part, and leave the second part: If a "christian" bombs a clinic are people outside of Christianity able to discern the difference?

If you're going to talk about it like a Christian then that would be equivalent to a Muslim. But its not about a Muslim, its about thousands if not Millions. Its about Mosques that fund terrorism. Find a credible reference that shows a church funding terrorism.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

However, I have not ever seen any credible references that directly link a church to an abortion clinic bombing. .

I would suggest a cursory reading about Christian Identity and Eric Rudolph, the man who was sentenced for the olympic bombings *and* bombing 3 clinics.

The following is a link to a discussion from last week about this situation, abortion bombers and the IRA, it's heavily sourced , as I realize you like hard facts.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1729052;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

BTW please check the God is dead. (warning: rant) thread, where there's a discussion about logical fallacies, as many of your posts on this thread and others tend to use one of the techniques mentioned. A google search for 'logical fallacies' will bring up a list of the other ones that you use regularly.

I point this out because I know that you like hard facts, here's a great guide to fallacies, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/.

For instance, your quote above here:

Quote

argumentum ad ignorantiam: Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Another good one you may like:

Quote

False Dilemma: Definition:
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.
Examples:
(i) Either you're for me or against me.
(ii) America: love it or leave it.
(iii) Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
(iv) Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

However, I have not ever seen any credible references that directly link a church to an abortion clinic bombing. .

I would suggest a cursory reading about Christian Identity and Eric Rudolph, the man who was sentenced for the olympic bombings *and* bombing 3 clinics.

The following is a link to a discussion from last week about this situation, abortion bombers and the IRA, it's heavily sourced , as I realize you like hard facts.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1729052;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

I went to that link and read that you wrote this
I mentioned on a previous thread: Olympic Bomber
"Eric Rudolph was a fundie christian who travelled in white supremacist circles and bombed abortion clinics because he believed it was against God. "

It seems like you are not even reading my post or your just trying to confuse the issue. I said one man who happens to identify himself as Christian can not compare to a Mosque funding terrorism. So you went and cited one man. It really makes me wonder if indeed you really don't get it or you just don't want to.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Ah, yes, I read your post. I'm sorry, lets try that again...

If you read my post rather than jumping on a percieved innaccuracy you would have seen:

1. PAUL JENNINGS HILL - 2nd to fully defend the innocent against future acts by an active aggressor who was clearly unjust; a cold blooded murderer. A former Presbyterian minister on death row who killed two abortion providers " - yeah, pulled from a pro-life page where they have an honor roll of people who have performed violent crimes against abortion clinics and doctors.

You would also have seen an ongoing discussion debating at which point a church is said to be 'assisting terrorism' with the religious infrastructure of both the KKK and Christian Identity being talked about, the IRA mentioned, and a link to a website from a Christian Identity mission who sell souvenirs and tapes for $$$$, which presumably will go towards funding their church. Which, ironically, the FBI lists as a hate group which in turn is used to catagorize domestic terrorist groups as per the link to the FBI and Government links to yearly reports on domestic terrorism.


The question was also asked, an unanswered: is anyone able to quantify the ratio of militant muslims to peaceful muslims.

You have demanded facts from people who wish to discuss this with you. You have repeatedly talked about large numbers of muslim terrorists without any solid numbers to back it up. Historical timelines do not validate your premise, they only show what has happened.

I'll start:

Estimates of the total number of muslims in the world vary greatly, ranging from 0.7b to 1.2b, of that number _______ are extremists according to a report compiled by the CIA/Mossad/Mi6/KGB/Other (please enter which intelligence group) _____________ using data available for the periods ________ to ________ .

Which is what is provided regarding domestic terrorism and hate groups within the thread I linked to above, if you want to verify them.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Steel 0]

A former Presbyterian minister on death row who killed two abortion providers "
yeah, pulled from a pro-life page where they have an honor roll of people who have performed violent crimes against abortion clinics and doctors.
-----------------------------------------
What is meant by former? Does that mean he no longer was associated with a Presbyterian church at the time? you did not provide a link so there is no way to know. If he is a wacko that was thrown out of his church, then I hardly think its relevant. Again, we don't know because you didn't post a source and I for one had never heard of the story. And where is this honor roll? Is it posted by a church? Is this a church that has a physical address and can be contacted.

===================================
with the religious infrastructure of both the KKK and Christian Identity being talked about
-------------------------------------
The KKK, hmm. A group that attempts to join together WASP's as they call themselves. White anglo-saxon-protestant. White to eliminate the blacks, anglo-saxon's because that is the majority in this country and protestant mainly because they want to distance themselves from Catholics and Jews. This group tries to get people from all Protestant religions involved. But as far as I know, not church has endorsed him.
=========================

IRA mentioned, and a link to a website from a Christian Identity mission who sell souvenirs and tapes for $$$$
-----------------------------------------------
Again you mention the IRA and again I submitt that their goal was never Religously motivated. They wanted to be free of British rule, nothing more. Also the overwelming majority of them are Catholic. Please show us one shred of evidence that shows the Catholic religion sponsoring terrorism. The Catholic religion doesn't even condone war when its well warranted. Notice the former Pope John Paul worked very closely with Reagan to end the Soviet Union yet there was never a time when the John Paul suggested any kind of miltary action.
Ofcourse the reason it took so long to answer is because I have been busy.


=================================

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Steel,

I think it time I withdraw from this discussion again. You and I both seem to have a communication problem. You selectively ignore those parts of my posts which would be tough to argue against and instead nitpick on small points that could easily be rectified by a quick google search, when you're not simply misunderstanding me.

Secondly, you have changed your stance through weasel words throughout todays discussion. Your ignorance regarding the KKK and what it represents is so out of whack that it might be considered insulting.

Your statements regarding the OFFICIAL catholic church are different than 'support from a church' and that you cannot see the difference leads me to believe either you and I are not speaking the same version of english or you are intentionally ignoring everything I'm saying and just writing whatever you think will continue this argument regardless of facts.

No, it would be difficult to prove that the official Catholic religion is sponsoring terrorism in exactly the same way that it is impossible to suggest that the official church of Islam is sponsoring terrorism (as it is also spread over the globe with many different sects and structures yet has a universal core belief system).

"But anybody with the most miniscule knowledge about that conflict. {BTW in college, I wrote a 15 page paper with more than 5 sources on Michael Collins} knows that none of their attacks were funded by a Catholic church." - Steel, your ignorance here regarding how the IRA was funded by american catholics (to name one group of donors). It is common knowledge to most people with an interest in the conflict that Irish Americans helped fund the IRA - the vast majority catholic. Official record keeping in churches of 'Donation to IRA'? please, can we be a little less naive? - my source? Growing up in a town the IRA blew up regularly, seeing legal actions on BBC television, documentaries on US fund raising, then moving to Boston and drinking in pubs that collect for 'The Cause'. While you may be correct that its an 'English out' problem I will leave it to the Irish and Northern Irish to explain where that is not the whole story. (ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575144_2/Irish_Republican_Army.html
Please pay attention to the section Procurement, and the discussion of protestant/catholic tensions.

These are verifiable facts, as requested, double sourced with many more available to find from any media source you may find suitable. As a college paper writing unix administrator it seems reasonable to expect you to have some familiarity with both Google and basic internet research.

I'm going to end my interaction with you here because I feel that you'll change your questions, deny the veracity of my information without producing any challenge data or simply point out grammatical errors - in otherwords, not worth my time.



For future reference, and general consumption:

Here's how you argue in a way that uses facts, no logical fallacies and provides room for debate.

Conclusion: Steel is a racist,

Premises:

premise 1: Within the sarcasm brackets you stated: "Yeah about 5 minutes after this psycho faith was invented in the 6th century. " but each statement regarding arabs since then has been in support of this premise.

of course, if english is not your first language I apologize as I realize that sometimes translations can be tricky (such as my italian friend who thinks that c*** is a polite word for female genitals). So feel free to ignore the rest of the analysis over this one thread.

2. " I will continue to analyze things objectively. Skin color generalizations will always be challened with annecdotes. Kind of like the Irish wolfhound is the tallest breed but people who know dogs know they can always find a great dane that is taller. That doesn't change the fact that the average Irish Wolfhound is taller than the average great dane."

This statement has been used as justification for racist behavior for at least two centuries. This was the main thrust of Eugenics. The main difference here is that we're all HUMAN and not different breeds of dogs - which were artificially created by human intervention for the most part.

3. When Bill Von finds one town in the entire U.S. that is populated 90% black that is not a slum, then we can think this statement might hold a couple of drops of water.

- Again, I haven't seen you quote any statistics, or shown that you have the information on hand to begin to make a statement like this - at least as part of a rational argument for or againt any particular statement. An equally valid claim would be: When Billvon finds me one guy named Steel who isnt racist I'll believe it. I do not know if Steel is a racist, I only have limited information regarding that, I have only met one Steel, I am sure there are many more online, and many who use that name offline too. It is unlikely that they are all racists.

In lieu of any hard data it's a totally bogus argument.

4. "It almost suggests that the Muslims called it a holy site only so that it would inspire their followers to fight the Jews, the Infidels"

This is a pretty vicious claim from someone who has professed a deep knowledge of history, and if you really do know history than you are assuredly either racist or have every intention of starting a flame war on this forum. (mods, please note the conditions placed on that statement being considered true - sorry, I code therefor I use conditionals)

The reason for Jerusalem being holy to muslims was because thats where muslims used to pray to before they decided on mecca as a religious center. Google this fact, it's also available in the historical introduction of the Penguin Classics Series english translation of the koran (translated 1956, hardback release early 1970s). Jerusalem was chosen first because the Prophet Muhammad first believed they were part of the same Jewish and Christian family, with Islam having been created as a way to use the teachings of christianity and judaism to appeal to the Arabs' culture - one of tribal nomadism, and provide a little spritual discipline. This is true until the expulsion of the Jewish tribes and the 'break with Jerusalem' in March 624. This is a major point in their history, even I - with a less than cursory knowledge of Islam was aware of this fact.

5. "Then some pyscho descendant of the people who actually built Dallas claims it as a holy land. But rather than blend in peacefully he starts murdering followers of both of the other religions and continues to do so for thousands of years, meanwhile he claims to be a from a religion of peace. Now how does that sound? " Used as an example for what Muslims are doing with Jerusalem, no sarcasm tags yet exactly the same wording, the same wording twice to cover the same topic would lead me to believe this is actually your true feelings about Islam.


Notice, each premise is argued rationally without resorting to distortion of the original quote, or distortion of it's apparent intent. There is no personal attack implied within the discussion, or sarcasm/taunts used.

Now the conclusion:

In all cases where Steel talked about Muslims outside of a historical context (discussing the crusades), he has used language that someone of arabic descent would find insulting (which is how I was made aware of your post, by an arab who was offended by your anti-muslim/arab statements). In addition, even in those cases where the terms used could in some way be acceptable language to promote discussion there was no factual evidence put forward, only verbal sleight of hand and subtle attacks on other posters in retaliation (chewbacca defense), this in addition to a constant tone of disdain throughout the series of posts leads me to my conclusion.

Therefor, I argue that Steel is a racist and violating the Forum's TOS.

See? it's quite easy if you can go in a straight line and use previous evidence to support your statements.

Oh of course,

<= (this was humor)

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Steel 0]

I wish I had the time to go tit for tat with you and check spelling and grammar carefully so that you don't have a reason to attack my language skills. I guess you must either have a lot of spare time on your hands or have a lot of money to pay a secretary. In either case your best bet would be to take a trip to Saudi Arabia so that you can see the way life is under Islamic rule. Then maybe you would have less politically correct jibberish to spew. Or a quick start might be to do a google search and find what the third world countries of the world are and then who lives there or who built it up. Your "careful" wording that concludes I am a "racist" can easily be responded to by saying that you are a politically correct witch-hunting fool. You are one of those people that gets upset when that facts are not on your side and therefore makes up his own facts. If that does not work you try to spin the issue and talk about something else. Are you so uninformed that you do not know that there are different branches of Islam? You can't compare that to Catholisism, when its clear that its referring to the Roman Catholic church. You offer no evidence that the any Catholic churches in Ireland have sponsored terrorism but yet you think we should all take your word for it. Here a little tidbit for you about the Roman Catholic church before I just give up on you. Its structured, as I have already said. A priest does not just do what he wants, he answers to a pastor, who does not just do what he wants but answers to a Bishop, and so on all the way up to the Pope. This is why you never see a Roman Catholic Cleric involved in Terrorism, the Pope is against it. The same can NOT be said about Islam. Are you not familiar with Islamic Jihad? That is not ancient history. Go to Saudi Arabia and see if you can disrespect Islam in the most minimal possible public way and leave that country in any way other than a body bag. For god sakes, their leaders are clerics of Islam, and they in no way are afraid to threaten violence.
Bottomline, I give up on you. They only reason, I have even responded to you is so that others reading who may not be politically correct witch-hunting fools won't be confused by your jibberish.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

you never see a Roman Catholic Cleric involved in Terrorism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,863786,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/21/1040174437915.html?oneclick=true

You really need to read up on the problems in Northern Ireland (past AND present) if you seriously believe it's all to do with getting the Brits out of NI.

A huge amount of the violence there is Protestants killing Catholics because they are Catholics and Catholics killing Protestants because they are Protestants.

It is most certainly a Christian sectarian conflict.

[billvon 3,132]

>How can you claim to be something basied on a book, but ignore the
>parts of the book you don't like?

Same reason you ignore the part in the constitution that says you have to give back slaves that run away. I suspect you still believe in the constitution.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Same reason you ignore the part in the constitution that says you have to give back slaves that run away. I suspect you still believe in the constitution.

Ah, you seem to choose to ignore another part of the constituiton....Amendment XIII (1865)

The bible does not have an "Amendment process".

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,132]

>Ah, you seem to choose to ignore another part of the
> constituiton....Amendment XIII (1865)

No, I heed the amendment and ignore the first part, just as you do. Go down to DC and check out the original constitution - that part is still there. No one erased it. We just ignore that part now.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Ah, you seem to choose to ignore another part of the
> constituiton....Amendment XIII (1865)

No, I heed the amendment and ignore the first part, just as you do. Go down to DC and check out the original constitution - that part is still there. No one erased it. We just ignore that part now.

But you ignored the part where I said that Jesus didn't give a plan for "amendments."

You can't compare the US Constitution to the Bible.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,132]

>But you ignored the part where I said that Jesus didn't give a
>plan for "amendments."

Jesus isn't even in the first half of the bible, the part you have an issue with. So who does that leave? Well, for catholics, the pope would be the one 'in charge.' The pope has said that interpretations of the bible can change with the times; he's even said that evolution cannot be ignored as an alternative to creation. So he's changing the interpretation of it.

Now, you can believe that's "illegal" or whatever, that without a constitutional amendment process you can't change a document, and therefore all of catholicisim is invalid. If you believe that, it would be more accurate to say that you _believe_ catholicism invalid. There's nothing wrong with that position; many people believe it.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Jesus isn't even in the first half of the bible, the part you have an issue with

I have issue with both halves

Quote

So who does that leave? Well, for catholics, the pope would be the one 'in charge.' The pope has said that interpretations of the bible can change with the times; he's even said that evolution cannot be ignored as an alternative to creation. So he's changing the interpretation of it.

Show me where the bible gives that power to him.

Quote

Now, you can believe that's "illegal" or whatever, that without a constitutional amendment process you can't change a document, and therefore all of catholicisim is invalid. If you believe that, it would be more accurate to say that you _believe_ catholicism invalid. There's nothing wrong with that position; many people believe it.

Show me where the bible 'The word of God' gives the pope that power.

Again you can't compare the Bible a book written as the word of 'God' and the Constitution that even in it has ways to change or modify it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

Same reason you ignore the part in the constitution that says you have to give back slaves that run away. I suspect you still believe in the constitution.

Ah, you seem to choose to ignore another part of the constituiton....Amendment XIII (1865)

The bible does not have an "Amendment process".

And that is the problem with Religion. No room for improvement or acceptance of new information.

illegible usually

[billvon 3,132]

>Show me where the bible gives that power to him.

The papacy:

Matthew 16:18 - And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Catholics interpret "Peter" to mean "Peter and his successors i.e. the popes)

The right to interpret it, from the Catholic Catechism:

"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

>Again you can't compare the Bible a book written as the word of 'God'
>and the Constitution that even in it has ways to change or modify it.

So why are you applying the same rules to both? The Bible is not a historical or governing document. No one voted on it. It can't be proved wrong. It can't be amended - but it can be altered and reinterpreted, and it has been, often. (And unless you can read Greek and Hebrew, you have only read altered versions.)

However, it _is_ the basis of a great many religions, and their interpretations of it are just as valid as yours.