maybe just maybe people like Foxy will stop being 2 faced after reading this

https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/?fbclid=IwAR3LYxsetQEGEd-JVDEd1y7V1zRP0n0RLFPI_VpcsiKkJoofVKeV-lmcRcA#K6VrM1KUTyzovXgv.97

Shadow Minister.

So you collaborated in your own subordination, now you regret it.

Instead if the learnered man you pretend to be, you are actually a willing porn in a porn star new age libertarian-enlightened social morality.

Under the banner of equality, the libertarians unleashed a laissez-faire substitute, and sold the pup through a marketing network normally reserved for trade and commerce.

In their world, homosexuality is the mast-head of equality. Having sold that as a pup, it is now arriving in maturity as a savage wolf.

I don't think your smart enough to recognise regrets!

Diver Dan,

Violence is not new to the history of religions.
Christians and Buddhists also have a track
record of fanaticism, such as the bombing of
abortion clinics, and as you point out the
hardliner Buddhists in Myanmar.

Religious content may be a catalyst for violent
action, but it should be remembered that its
reading relies heavily on human interpretation.

What we need to do is avoid making assumptions
about what a religion might mean and instead focus
more on how the faithful live.

The enemy of peace is not religion, but those who
pursue acts of terror and violence against the
innocent in the "name" of religion.

Foxy,

Let's have an interpretation of this:

"Quran:
5,33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Is Mise,

There are just too many hard conclusions made
about religious texts, often made by those who know
less than they claim. Therefore with all due
respect - I suggest you go and get a proper
interpretation of the text in question from an
expert.

Religious content - and its reading
relies heavily on human interpretation. I would
hate to give you the wrong interpretation.

All I can politely suggest is that perhaps - rather than
listening to the claims and counter claims about
what the religion might mean, that instead we focus more
on how the faithful live.

The enemy of peace is not religion, but those who
pursue acts of terror and violence against the
innocent in the "name" of religion.

Foxy,

"Quran:
5,33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."

Surely that translation is in plain unequivocal English; English moreover that any librarian should be able to understand