BBC in some bad people in all walks of life shocker. http://www.newsbullet.in/world/52-more/ ... x-assaults

BBC in some bad people in all walks of life shocker. http://www.newsbullet.in/world/52-more/ ... x-assaults

Sadfish wrote:BBC in some bad people in all walks of life shocker. http://www.newsbullet.in/world/52-more/ ... x-assaults But the point remains the same as: the BBC presenter probably hasn't lectured people on how they should behave and, indeed, been treated by society as some sort of an authority on moral behaviour.

Sadfish wrote:BBC in some bad people in all walks of life shocker. http://www.newsbullet.in/world/52-more/ ... x-assaults But the point remains the same as: the BBC presenter probably hasn't lectured people on how they should behave and, indeed, been treated by society as some sort of an authority on moral behaviour.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:I'm no expert, but What's a dark-eyed, chaste grape? Grapes? In tents? No, if I read using the "grapes" version, I'm afraid it just doesn't make sense. Maybe the confusion between 72 virgins and grapes is just because there's a large bunch of 'em Grapes or virgins? Mind, if it isn't, it merely acts as further confirmation of the sexist nature of fundamentalist Islam – just as with 'orthodox' (code word for fundamentalist) Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity, then.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:I'm no expert, but What's a dark-eyed, chaste grape? Grapes? In tents? No, if I read using the "grapes" version, I'm afraid it just doesn't make sense. Maybe the confusion between 72 virgins and grapes is just because there's a large bunch of 'em Grapes or virgins? Mind, if it isn't, it merely acts as further confirmation of the sexist nature of fundamentalist Islam – just as with 'orthodox' (code word for fundamentalist) Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity, then.

Mintball wrote: Ferocious Aardvark wrote:I'm no expert, but What's a dark-eyed, chaste grape? Grapes? In tents? No, if I read using the "grapes" version, I'm afraid it just doesn't make sense. Maybe the confusion between 72 virgins and grapes is just because there's a large bunch of 'em Grapes or virgins? Mind, if it isn't, it merely acts as further confirmation of the sexist nature of fundamentalist Islam – just as with 'orthodox' (code word for fundamentalist) Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity, then. I looked at the first three links and none of them offered a compelling argument for the correct translation being 'grapes'. The first link, in fact, dismissed the idea completely - using a similar argument to the Aardvark's. I did chuckle at some of the other information in that first link though: apparently these virgins don't menstruate or go for a poo. And they have 'appetising vaginas'. Who makes this shjt up?

Mintball wrote: Ferocious Aardvark wrote:I'm no expert, but What's a dark-eyed, chaste grape? Grapes? In tents? No, if I read using the "grapes" version, I'm afraid it just doesn't make sense. Maybe the confusion between 72 virgins and grapes is just because there's a large bunch of 'em Grapes or virgins? Mind, if it isn't, it merely acts as further confirmation of the sexist nature of fundamentalist Islam – just as with 'orthodox' (code word for fundamentalist) Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity, then. I looked at the first three links and none of them offered a compelling argument for the correct translation being 'grapes'. The first link, in fact, dismissed the idea completely - using a similar argument to the Aardvark's. I did chuckle at some of the other information in that first link though: apparently these virgins don't menstruate or go for a poo. And they have 'appetising vaginas'. Who makes this shjt up?

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 Koran 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 Bible 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.