[meelash]

(a) I'm afraid you missed my point. I purposely stayed away from all matters of interpretation, and only replied to factually incorrect statements. None of the counter-arguments I presented were matters in which interpretation could be done, they were all factually incorrect statements, on whose basis that video was making interpretations. Now if the basis of an interpretation is a bunch of factually incorrect statements, then what need is there to argue further on the validity of the interpretation of those statements? It is meaningless.

(b) Now addressing interpretation, you cannot legitimately interpret the Qur'aan either the way that video words it, nor "to be peaceful". Rather, as appropriate to its claim of being a complete life-guide, it will necessarily contain the laws, morals, and motivations of both war and peace.

(c) "Religious books aren't perfectly unambiguous"-- have you done an exhaustive survey of all "religious books" to be able to make such a bold, broad statement? It seems likely you're relying on very limited information regarding a few religious books and abstracting, without any possible justification, to all religious books. This seems likely to be more based on personal dogma than rational thought.

[AndyKelley]

I think you've correctly called me out on all three points. It looks like I have some studying to do before responding to you intelligently.