Anyway, for the 21st century, the theory doesn't stack up; they may have been a precious commodity back in the desert day, but if you had a choice between
(a) blowing yourself up; or
(b) nipping to the grocer at the corner with two quid,
- which method of grape acquisition would you choose?

I hadn't read it myself, but heard it on a ducumentary (Channel 4, if memory serves) a few years ago about how the [iKoran[/i has always been open to interpretation, regardless of claims by fundamentalists to the contrary.



It's a fantasy novel.

That much is obvious, but I don't think the whole virgins/grapes thing is a terribly good example. The context seems to strongly imply that 'virgins' is the correct translation.

Apparently so. I do wonder about the mental well being of an author who fantasises about non-weeing, non-pooing, non-menstruating women with tasty snatches though. According to that link, the virgins are also said to be 'transparent to the marrow of their bones'. Which is weird.

You'd have to wonder about the mental state of whoever wrote the [iBible[/i too.

I think, though, that perhaps part of the issue is a fear of women (of the whole process of them giving birth and menstruating) – which in terms of ancient times, might be understandable. And if you don't understand the biology etc and you have limited hygiene (there's a reason for cutting off the foreskin), then it's more understandable.

Chuck in the whole madonna/whore thing, the shared (across the Abrahamic religions) belief that woman was to blame for the Fall etc – conflate all these things (and more) and it's pretty easy to see where you'd get some of this sort of stuff.

The blood is scary; genitals have a smell etc etc – so your fantasy version doesn't have these very human traits.

But that's the thing with so much religion: it was about trying to find ways to understand the world and deal with it. And that's a lot easier to understand in the context of the times than it is now, when we know so much more.

Still, it must be exciting wondering whether your virgin is going to suffer kidney failure first, or a prolapsed rectum.

If she's transparent and you can only see her bone marrow then surely she's just going to look like a big tin of Pedigree Chum.

Now I've never tried dog food, it might be tasty but I don't want to sh[ia[/ig it.

Well blow me, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/nyregion/infants-death-renews-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html?_r=3&pagewanted=allthe Rabbis are at it now[/url

I struggle to it into words but i'll try.

The abuse (well done the church on devaluing a word) of children is pretty similar accross all demographics.

It's when the people at the head of these groups defend them that sickens the majority.

How the C of E reacts to this will define them (for now).

Another example of the undue respect given to religion. If any other ideology was used as a reason for men cutting off the foreskins of young boys and orally sucking the blood from the wound, it would have been banned ages ago.

I never actually knew they did that, Glitter missed a trick there.

Only in ultra orthodox and some orthodox denominations, according to the article.

What confuses me is, if God is so infallible, why did he make man with such an obvious design fault:

"Sorry lads, I messed up the cock. Any chance you could sort it out for me?"

And of the course the women aren't left alone!

But he only had 6 days, the 7th he had a big .

:12a6yo1p

D'ya think?

the next your being asked to do a five finger shuffle



Comes back to choice really, hand shandy/no rucksack or see through virgins/dismembered.