@ SfT

There's a whole methodology in the various sects of Christianity, just as there is in the fragmentations of Muslim orthodoxy that "determine the way to read the texts" ( Theologists words) and " to verify what is true and what is not." (Your words). The only problem with that is the interpretations vary sect to sect and cult to cult in both the Muslim and Christian world according to circumstance and the body politic.

The unreliability of the decisions handed down by clergy, religious courts and 'inspired by god' leaders is the main thing that promotes discord and inter sect mayhem as we witness right now throughout the Middle East. You, SfT, are following an imperative you find suits you, and you condemn those that interpret the same words in the same text differently to justify their behaviour. You do not apply the same tests and rationale to your behaviour and texts because " we used the right method to ascertain the truth" .i.e you took an another authority to justify your position.Yet you have no proofs, any more than than the competing interpretation for the "proof" of your belief.

That is the chasm you seek to overcome on these forums, and, fail with certainty. We here call bullshit on all the competing "interpretations" of the unsullied "divine word" or "god inspired gospels" and ask ; "why should we believe the Sunni (RCC) way. when the Shia (Baptists) or the Sufi (Pentecostals) say this?"

All of you apologists come up with the "divine word, unchanged and unchanging", the "our interpretations of the text are the correct ones because" and all you amateur religious stand back, and damn with faint fervour the excesses and brutalities of those that take your books and texts literally when dealing with those of other faiths. You only bleat when it comes home to roost in your own communities, or ensnares your children. But then all you Christian and Muslim alike fund those areas and clergy where extremism and terror breeds.

That is why I described your exact feelings in a previous post, I have read and discussed the Qu'ran and the Hadith, both accepted and non accepted with learned muslims of most stripes and I call "nonsense" on all your houses as I do on the Christians. That is your Cognitive Disorder SfT and that is what will turn you into a fundamentalist or an apostate. Your feet are treading both paths at the moment, but cannot continue to do so for too long.

You arguments in this forum become more irrational when you continually use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the face of real and evidenced religious practices that go uncondemned by those very authorities that you claim support your vision of a peaceful and just Islam.
You see that yawning gap between your personal supposition and actual reality? There is your problem. Religion's problem and that which will ultimately destroy you SfT, that is the truth.

(Edited for punctuation and clarity)

" Except, in Islam there are various ways of verifying if the metaphor is being used correctly."

No there aren't, Hitchens's razor applied.

The claim an omniscient deity is unable to communicate clearly, or that a perfectly merciful deity would use metaphor, is truly one of the most irrational and imbecilic claims theists make. It's a desperate excuse to ignore the barbaric , erroneous, and amoral claims in their religious books.

Now that is an outstanding post, well reasoned & rational, and eloquently constructed. He'll ignore it of course, but well said.

"saying a scholar is the same as any other human in regards to their knowledge of a particular subject is like saying a little kid is the same as Galileo or Hawking."

No it isn't, citing someone as a scholar doesn't make their claims objective facts, hence the need for a scientific consensus as part of the process that validates the genius of people like Hawking. What you did was use an appeal to authority fallacy. The word scholar when referring to religious texts doesn't validate subjective opinions about supernatural claims, or about their subjective interpretation of texts that often state plainly something they want to deny. Science in stark contrast must be supported by objective empirical evidence. Muslim apologists often make this asinine claim. A "scholar" on the Harry potter books could claim wizards and magic are real, but even if their scholarly credentials on the books were an objective fact, it wouldn't validate their claim, as you are trying to pretend scholars on the Koran can do here. All Koranic claims for anything supernatural are no more than superstitious flimflam, no matter who claims otherwise, unless they can objectively evidence their claims, and being a scholar on the book does not make their claims about true unless those claims can be corroborated with sufficient objective evidence, as is the case with validated scientific facts, and this applies equally to geniuses like Newton and some Billy no name we've never heard of. Newton also held beliefs that he could demonstrate no objective evidence for, science doesn't use his genius to claim these are true, it acknowledges his genius because his theories of gravity have been objectively validated.

Breezy has the same problem comprehending the scientific methods of validation. .

"The more i talk to atheists the more i realize why they find it so easy, its empty and meaningless and takes 2 minutes to fully understand and become an expert of believing in nothing"

All that shows is that you are as ignorant as you are illiterate. You could Google atheism in ten seconds and know your claim is moronic nonsense, so it is clearly you who prefers to know nothing, in order to keep believing vapid superstitious fairy tales.

All these claims yet you haven't even read it. That's all I have to say