PDA

View Full Version : "Election of gay bishop prompts walkout"


patrick0brien
Aug 6, 2003, 03:40 PM
Article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-episcopalians-gay-bishop,1,452366.story?coll=chi-news-hed)

-All I can say:

Flat-Earthers. I personally expected this, and I find that my expecation was fulfilled, a sad testament.

"A little revolution every now and then, is a good thing."

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 05:00 PM
grr suntimes requires registration. i think this article is the same story:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/218/region/U_S_Episcopalians_approve_open:.shtml

i expected it too. sounds like it could get a lot worse...

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 05:44 PM
that's so lame. i'm tired of the masses that live in fear. my advice for those who feel the need to protest in such a way is: "get over it."

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
that's so lame. i'm tired of the masses that live in fear. my advice for those who feel the need to protest in such a way is: "get over it."

Hang on there partner ;)

Remember, I am pro gay rights ok. This is a Church, that has rules according to the bible. Now, some of those believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. They are against it from that perspective, and believe that someone who is gay cannot preach the word of God, as they believe they are not being Godly.

So, it isn't something that they can just get over.

Not directed at you ok....

Why is it that when the majority doesn't understand the minority, they are called narrow minded, and not with the times. But if the minority doesn't understand the majority, they are called brave, and unique thinkers? Both treat each other the same way.

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hang on there partner ;)


i get what you're saying. and i'm normally pretty tolerant, but i'm sick to death of what's done in the name of "god."

using one's religious beliefs to attack gays (and i'm looking at acts beyond today's walkout) is, to me, no better than the taliban's treatment of its women. i don't care which religion it is.

Pinto
Aug 6, 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

This is a Church, that has rules according to the bible. Now, some of those believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. They are against it from that perspective, and believe that someone who is gay cannot preach the word of God, as they believe they are not being Godly.

That would be the same Bible that said it was ok for Gods chosen people to invade other people's land and kill every man, woman, child and animal.

If they are going to quote the old testament when it suits, they should live their lives according to everything in the bible and not just pick and choose.

If they did that they would soon find themselves either in prison at the worst, or with empty churches at best.

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i get what you're saying. and i'm normally pretty tolerant, but i'm sick to death of what's done in the name of "god."

using one's religious beliefs to attack gays (and i'm looking at acts beyond today's walkout) is, to me, no better than the taliban's treatment of its women. i don't care which religion it is.

I agree 100%, but remember, the Church is a private organization. It is not state funded.

See where I am going. Just playing devils advocate here.
:D

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
That would be the same Bible that said it was ok for Gods chosen people to invade other people's land and kill every man, woman, child and animal.

If they are going to quote the old testament when it suits, they should live their lives according to everything in the bible and not just pick and choose.

If they did that they would soon find themselves either in prison at the worst, or with empty churches at best.

Remember Pinto, Christians do not preach from the old testament. But the new. ;)

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I agree 100%, but remember, the Church is a private organization. It is not state funded.


yes, but that's not part of my thought process. according to me, religious idiocy led to 9/11. other than scale, i don't see much difference between that and a christian mob killing a gay person.

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
yes, but that's not part of my thought process. according to me, religious idiocy led to 9/11. other than scale, i don't see much difference between that and a christian mob killing a gay person.

Yea, but this isn't a Christian mob killing a gay person. Only wackos would ever do anything like that, and I would hope that they would meet a nice cold strecher in a prison somewhere for it.

This is a group of people walking out on a convention to protest the conformation of an openly gay bishop. Huge difference don't you think.

Remember, all they are doing is protesting.....;);););)

Just having fun my brother.

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

This is a group of people walking out on a convention to protest the conformation of an openly gay bishop. Huge difference don't you think.


absolutely. and i support their right to do so, though i may think they're silly and hypocritical.

if the people involved in the walkout want me to believe that they truly believe in a religion that advocates tolerance, let's see a little put into practice. (and now i'll give a nod to all those who did _not_ walk out)

Ugg
Aug 6, 2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I agree 100%, but remember, the Church is a private organization. It is not state funded.



Yes, but how much would people donate if those donations weren't tax free?

pseudobrit
Aug 6, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
This is a Church, that has rules according to the bible. Now, some of those believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. They are against it from that perspective, and believe that someone who is gay cannot preach the word of God, as they believe they are not being Godly.

Any Christian religion that calls homosexuality a sin that would cause those who follow the faith to protest in such an asinine, obscene, compassionless way is not a Christian religion.

To say this is based on the Bible is horribly misguided and they need to read their Gospel a little closer and pay less attention to the millenia old Jewish law outlined in the letters.

FWIW, the Catholic Church would have no problem promoting a gay priest/bishop. For Catholics, if a gay man (or woman) can abstain from partaking in homosexual activity, the mere fact that they are openly gay is 100% a-okay in the eyes of the Church.

So it would follow that a priest, by nature celibate, would be fine admitting to his homosexuality. Of course, that would be no one's business but his own in the end.

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

Of course, that would be no one's business but his own in the end.

edit! rephrase!

patrick0brien
Aug 6, 2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
edit! rephrase!

-zimv20

Haah! :D

That's funny as Sh**.

Oo. I'm so punny.

Seriously, I expected the Church to do something like this - even in todays times of preferred healthy debate, they went off IMHO half-cocked. I would have wished such a debate, before falling back to the same tried-and-failed system that jailed Galileo, persecuted puritans and generally cause all sorts of anguish.

One positive outcome however from that tried-and-failed method, is the emphasis of separation of Church and State as the U.S. has. For that, I am thankful.

pseudobrit
Aug 6, 2003, 11:30 PM
Well, remember this isn't "The Church" aka the Roman Catholic Church that was behind such lovely things as the Inquisition and the Crusades, but one of the dozens of spinoff Protestant sects.

Perci Mac
Aug 6, 2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Remember Pinto, Christians do not preach from the old testament. But the new. ;)

Or from anywhere that can support their bigoted views.;) :p

Pinto
Aug 6, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Remember Pinto, Christians do not preach from the old testament. But the new. ;)

Is Homosexuality mentioned in the new testament? I can't remember, I tended to read the old testament in church (during the dead boring sermons). It was far more interesting from a non-theological standpoint. All blood & Guts!!

pseudobrit
Aug 7, 2003, 12:17 AM
Plenty of Christians preach from the Old Testament. It's got a lot more material to abuse for anti-Christian agendas.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 7, 2003, 06:29 AM
originally posted by patrickObrien
Seriously, I expected the Church to do something like this - even in todays times of preferred healthy debate, they went off IMHO half-cocked. I would have wished such a debate, before falling back to the same tried-and-failed system that jailed Galileo, persecuted puritans and generally cause all sorts of anguish.

But this is one result of faith that i've certainly seen - the inability to question anything that threatens your worldview. just get the blinders on and go forward in a straight line...

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I agree 100%, but remember, the Church is a private organization. It is not state funded.

See where I am going. Just playing devils advocate here.
:D

Not state funded until we get a nice dose of Faith-Based-Inititives handed to us.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
Is Homosexuality mentioned in the new testament? I can't remember, I tended to read the old testament in church (during the dead boring sermons). It was far more interesting from a non-theological standpoint. All blood & Guts!!

Yes, it is. It says that no man shall covet another man. That is it an abnormal action in the eyes of God.

FWIW, the Catholic Church WOULD have a problem promoting an openly gay priest. Would not happen. Sorry.

As for Christians and the old testamate. The New testament redefines man with God. The New testament replaces a lot of what was in the old testament.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Any Christian religion that calls homosexuality a sin that would cause those who follow the faith to protest in such an asinine, obscene, compassionless way is not a Christian religion.



Wait a second. Let me get this straight. You support anti-war peoples right to protest a government action, by going so far as to try to stop the supplies from reaching the troops, but you don't support a private organizations right to protest a conformation of a gay priest because they feel that it is against the law of the bible.

Come on my brother, look at what you are saying. It makes no logical sense at all. They did not hurt the guy, threaten the guy, or anything at all. They protested by walking out of a convention. What is so obsece, asinine, or compassionless about that?

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
It says that no man shall covet another man.

sooooooo... two guys can have sex, as long as they don't want each other. :-)

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
sooooooo... two guys can have sex, as long as they don't want each other. :-)

HA! That was a good one. THanks for easing the weight in this thread ;)

pseudobrit
Aug 7, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You support anti-war peoples right to protest a government action by going so far as to try to stop the supplies from reaching the troops,

************. I never supported that action. I'm calling you out on this one, now.

Show me where I said it was okay to block shipment of supplies to troops.

If you can't I want an apology.

but you don't support a private organizations right to protest a conformation of a gay priest because they feel that it is against the law of the bible.

Come on my brother, look at what you are saying. It makes no logical sense at all. They did not hurt the guy, threaten the guy, or anything at all. They protested by walking out of a convention. What is so obsece, asinine, or compassionless about that?

It was not a very Christian thing to do. They're not protesting a government action that they have little influence over.
There is no corollary between this type of protest within a religious body and a citizen's protest against the government.

pseudobrit
Aug 7, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yes, it is. It says that no man shall covet another man. That is it an abnormal action in the eyes of God.

Well, what are you citing exactly?

FWIW, the Catholic Church WOULD have a problem promoting an openly gay priest. Would not happen. Sorry.

Seeing as there are no openly heterosexual priests either, I don't think the Church would know about its gay priests. Many Catholic priests are homosexuals, BTW.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
************. I never supported that action. I'm calling you out on this one, now.

Show me where I said it was okay to block shipment of supplies to troops.

If you can't I want an apology.



It was not a very Christian thing to do. They're not protesting a government action that they have little influence over.
There is no corollary between this type of protest within a religious body and a citizen's protest against the government.

Sorry, it wasn't you that was supporting that protest. My bad. Ok, other democrats ;) (or anti-war folks)

As for the corollary. yea, there is. Why can we protest the government, but not a private organization. I can promise you if they were testing products on animals, someone would protest ;)

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, what are you citing exactly?



Seeing as there are no openly heterosexual priests either, I don't think the Church would know about its gay priests. Many Catholic priests are homosexuals, BTW.

Romans 1:21-32
Genesis 19
Matthew 15:19
1 Timothy 9:10

When I get home I can put up about another two hundred or so references. ;)

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

When I get home I can put up about another two hundred or so references. ;)

nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sorry, it wasn't you that was supporting that protest. My bad. Ok, other democrats ;) (or anti-war folks)

As for the corollary. yea, there is. Why can we protest the government, but not a private organization. I can promise you if they were testing products on animals, someone would protest ;)

Those priests had every right to protest by walking out. I would fully support any protest action that doesn't escalate into property destruction, threats, intimidation, or rowdyness for the sake of rowdyness. Silencing dissent never solves anything.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Those priests had every right to protest by walking out. I would fully support any protest action that doesn't escalate into property destruction, threats, intimidation, or rowdyness for the sake of rowdyness. Silencing dissent never solves anything.


Kudos to you on showing common sense! I applaud that!

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 03:33 PM
There have been so many splits in Churches it is ridiculous. As an aside, if you haven't ever seen Monty Python's Life of Brian and its commentary on the splits in churches and political movements then its well worth the time and the laughs concerning our stupidity on such subjects.

If folks want to leave a church because they can't stand the idea that their bishop is sleeping with another man - let 'em. Just because this maybe the first bishop in the Anglican church to be honest about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened before. Gay people aren't going to go back into the closet so those who want to build a new kind of closet for themselves are welcome to it. Just don't try and force the rest of us, gay and straight, in there with them.

raschild
Aug 7, 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
To say this is based on the Bible is horribly misguided and they need to read their Gospel a little closer and pay less attention to the millenia old Jewish law outlined in the letters.


Sorry, try again.

Romans 1:24-32

pseudobrit
Aug 7, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by raschild
Sorry, try again.

Romans 1:24-32

Sorry, YOU try again. That's Paul's letter to the Romans, exactly what I was talking about. Pay attention.

Show me where Christ condemned it in the Gospels.

pseudobrit
Aug 7, 2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Romans 1:21-32
Genesis 19
Matthew 15:19
1 Timothy 9:10

When I get home I can put up about another two hundred or so references. ;)

Still nothing here from Christ condemning being homosexual.

For example, from the very same book Timothy you cite, it says,

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I guess the Taliban was right up your alley if you're really going for this ****.

raschild
Aug 7, 2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Sorry, YOU try again. That's Paul's letter to the Romans, exactly what I was talking about. Pay attention.

Show me where Christ condemned it in the Gospels.

You are correct, the letter is written to the Romans--but you forget one thing. Truth is truth is truth. If it's in God's Word it's true, universally.

As far as a direct condemnation from Christ, all Scripture is God-breathed and finds it source in God (see 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 1:20-21). That's a pretty direct condemnation (though it's not in the Gospels, sorry. In the Bible is good enough for me).

Another thing you need is context. Anybody can get any verse to say anything they want it to, but there is only one, central meaning. Context is the way to find it.

I'm done now.

pseudobrit
Aug 7, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by raschild
You are correct, the letter is written to the Romans--but you forget one thing. Truth is truth is truth. If it's in God's Word it's true, universally.

So we should all stop eating pork and women should cover their heads?

Even the Catholic Church admits the Bible is flawed. It says when it comes to matters of faith, it is infalliable. This is not a matter of faith.

As far as a direct condemnation from Christ, all Scripture is God-breathed and finds it source in God

And can be wrong or outdated.

The Bible also turns a woman into salt.

(see 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 1:20-21) That's a pretty direct condemnation (though it's not in the Gospels, sorry. In the Bible is good enough for me).

Well, what is in the Gospels is a scene where Jesus heals a centurion's "boy" (sex slave) at the centurion's request. Jesus complies because the Centurion has such great faith.

Now THAT'S being a Christian.

Another thing you need is context. Anybody can get any verse to say anything they want it to, but there is only one, central meaning. Context is the way to find it.

Many of the parts quoted so often are aimed at the sex slave trade and homosexual prostitution. (for context, you know.) So to cite them as being God's word that he hates gays is a fallacy.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 08:39 PM
Well, remember the chapters of Roman are in the New Testamate, so not exactly Jewish law ;)

As far as everything else, it is a matter of faith. You believe the word of God. Not parts, but all. You cannot pick and choose what you like and don't like. The book is all or none. The bible is pretty clear about that.

And my friend. Believe me, I don't really care what the Catholic Church says about anything, much less the Bible.

Please note that I am not trying to offend anyone with the last statement. If it did, I am sorry up front. I just don't agree with many of the things that Catholics believe. It has been hard for me and my wife as she is Catholic. So, I am not trying to offend, but expressing my view.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

And can be wrong or outdated.

The Bible also turns a woman into salt.


No if you have total faith in the book of God, it cannot be wrong, or outdated, because it is his word, and God cannot be outdated. ;)

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No if you have total faith in the book of God, it cannot be wrong, or outdated, because it is his word, and God cannot be outdated. ;)

But what if you don't have faith in it?

Judo
Aug 7, 2003, 10:57 PM
What I find funny is this guy dedicating his life to a book that tells him he is going to go to hell for being who he really is. I don't know much about the Bible but I think it's fine if these people want to walk out in protest (as much as I don't agree with there ideas), it's a choice they are making with out bringing phisical harm to others. This preist is probably feeling it abit but he seemed like an onto it guy who could cope alright, from what I have seen of him on the tele anyway.

pseudobrit
Aug 8, 2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No if you have total faith in the book of God, it cannot be wrong, or outdated, because it is his word, and God cannot be outdated. ;)

The Bible contains factual errors.

End of story. Revise your way of thinking about it or deny reality; it's up to you.

The Catholic Church, with its old stodgy reputation, has admitted that the Bible contains errors, but that on matters of faith, it is God's word without question.

Well, remember the chapters of Roman are in the New Testamate, so not exactly Jewish law

You don't understand what the letters of the New Testament are about, then.
Many contain diatribes encouraging early Christians to obey the Jewish laws and customs. Early Christians were Jews who believed that Christ was the Messiah. To this day, the Catholic Church observes many Jewish holidays and customs as their own.

Backtothemac
Aug 8, 2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The Bible contains factual errors.

End of story. Revise your way of thinking about it or deny reality; it's up to you.

The Catholic Church, with its old stodgy reputation, has admitted that the Bible contains errors, but that on matters of faith, it is God's word without question.



You don't understand what the letters of the New Testament are about, then.
Many contain diatribes encouraging early Christians to obey the Jewish laws and customs. Early Christians were Jews who believed that Christ was the Messiah. To this day, the Catholic Church observes many Jewish holidays and customs as their own.

What errors? And as I said before, my Church doesn't observe any Jewish holidays. ;)

pseudobrit
Aug 8, 2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What errors? And as I said before, my Church doesn't observe any Jewish holidays. ;)

Well considering the fact that the Old Testament is all about the Jews and the New Testament is all about one Jew, I think it's important enough, but to each their own, I guess.

The Bible contains many historical and factual errors. It says, for instance, that rabbits chew cud. They don't.

So I guess God has a hidden cud chewing feature in every rabbit on Earth, because the Bible can't be wrong according to you.

And do you really think people were turned to salt or that early man lived for hundreds of years? Sillyness.

patrick0brien
Aug 8, 2003, 09:19 AM
-Gents

A perspective...

The problem with God's word being the absolute truth - and therefore only needing say it once to apply to all time, is not this issue.

The issue I see argued in the posts above, is that God's word has been written into the good book by a person with his own thoughts, interpretations, language, dialect, and cultural vernacular. Then that, in turn, is being interpreted hundreds of years later by translators with their own thoughts, interpretations, language, dialect, and cultural vernacular. Then, even hundreds of years beyond that, those translations, are then read by us, who have our own thoughts, interpretations, language, dialect, and cultural vernacular.

Do you see the issue here? What we are arguing is relativistic interpretation at best, and a copy of a copy of a copy, at worst. Additionally, if one receives the word of God from the minister, and not by one's own reading, add one more layer of thoughts, interpretations, language, dialect, and cultural vernacular to the mix - not to mention how well his mic is working.

There is no way anyone alive today can claim do know God's truth as it is written in the book. We fallable humans have smudged, and muddied it. This is one of the items the Church with grudgingly admit to as a flaw in the Bible - why do you think there are so many translations (Why does the Authentic 1611 King James Version seem to have more books than other translations?)? So many denominations?

All about interpretation.

All we can to is attempt to understand the intent, and be good to each other.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 8, 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by patrickObrien
The issue I see argued in the posts above, is that God's word has been written into the good book by a person with his own thoughts, interpretations, language, dialect, and cultural vernacular. Then that, in turn, is being interpreted hundreds of years later by translators with their own thoughts, interpretations, language, dialect, and cultural vernacular. Then, even hundreds of years beyond that, those translations, are then read by us, who have our own thoughts, interpretations, language, dialect, and cultural vernacular.


i'd probably say written by people with their own *agenda*...

patrick0brien
Aug 8, 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
i'd probably say written by people with their own *agenda*...

-Ambrose Chapel

:D

Using the word "thoughts" was as close to that term as I was willing to get.

abdul
Aug 10, 2003, 10:58 AM
i really dont understand people who say that the church should adapt into the new times if it wants to have a relevant place in society.

the fact is that gays are more than welcome to pray in churches. but what the religion, which they believe comes directly from God in the form of the Bible (also adapted James and other chritsian leader throughout history) classes homosexuality as a sin.

This is a religion at the end of the day. it shouldnt be adapted to suit society, but society should accept it for what it truely is.....as they believe is the word of God, and that shouldnt be changed.

im not against gays. but this is asking for too much from a religion which has rules.
you'll be asking next that the church should accept adultery/sx b4 marriage as most of society does it but its not what you expect the church to say as it disagrees with the message od gave the public

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by abdul
the fact is that gays are more than welcome to pray in churches. but what the religion, which they believe comes directly from God in the form of the Bible (also adapted James and other chritsian leader throughout history) classes homosexuality as a sin.

Ah, but the homosexuality is not the sin, only homosexual acts. And who among us is without sin to judge?

Pinto
Aug 10, 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No if you have total faith in the book of God, it cannot be wrong, or outdated, because it is his word, and God cannot be outdated. ;)

If a muslim has total faith in the Koran, does that mean that the rules in that book cannot be wrong or outdated?

Zaid
Aug 11, 2003, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by Pinto


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No if you have total faith in the book of God, it cannot be wrong, or outdated, because it is his word, and God cannot be outdated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If a muslim has total faith in the Koran, does that mean that the rules in that book cannot be wrong or outdated?


Even if one is willing to accept that these 'books of god' really are the direct word of god. (Quite a tenuous assumption, esp. for the bible) 1 Ė see below, one has to consider that they were revealed at a particular time, using the language and metaphor of a particular time so that it could be understood by people of that time. The message of the books may well be valid for all time, but they do have to be interpreted through the time and circumstances in which they were revealed. This is especially true if they are the inspired rather than the direct word of god.

And if it is felt that these holy books should be literally interpreted, then bring back the death penalty for disrespect to oneís parents and adultery etc. donít just pick and choose.

Also remember that neither of these books (as far as I know) tells anyone to shove salvation down my throat whether I want it or not. The rules in these books are for oneself, in order to lead a life pleasing to god, preach the message sure, but you canít force others to behave in that way. Let he without sin cast the first stone, Laa iqra fii-ddiini (let there be no compulsion in religion/faith)

1 Ė before I get toasted for what I said, let me explain further: IMHO the claim that these books are the direct word of god is tenuous. These holy books were written by men, they may have been divinely inspired, but they were still written by men. They are thus open to distortion, etc.

The koran claims to be the direct word of god, though one may claim that it is the inspired work of god (like the bible). It was however revealed to one man, and only one version exists. The bible on the other hand exists in a bewildering plethora of versions. Are they all the direct word of god? This is what I meant by saying that the claim of being the direct word of god was even more tenuous for the bible.