Allah talks about caste?

[Vrindavana Das]

I never tried to prove anyone religion wrong. Although you did a terrific job of giving the perception that Hinduism requires blind faith. You keep saying you need to first understand the background. I am sorry but that is not background. What you speak about is called bias. I asked you simply questions that anyone would ask who you when trying to learn your beliefs. The same way people ask me about terrorism and Islam. But, your answers were, please understand my bias and then you will understand. So I did understand. I did not make any accusations just asked questions and criticized. There is nothing wrong with criticizing, I do that with my own beliefs. This ensures that I am not blindly eating something. Every time I asked something you demonstrated extreme bias in explanation.

I will give you one example here:

You had provided me with a link. After visiting the link, I came back to you and shared that the speaker has not answered the question raised by one in the audience.

You come back saying that "If you read once again it states that misinterpretation is the focus, people missed symbolics and metaphoric language and took them literally over time."

I told you, scriptures are the science of God. They should be understood literally, to follow the spirit. Symbolically means, you are opening it to interpretations according to reader's capability to understand. Do you understand mathematics or Physics literally or symbolically? Gave you the verse raised by one in audience, in the link. It translates as:

I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings. [B.G. 10.20]

You tell me "The very statement that you showed me is proof in itself that this was not a claim to Godhood."

It clearly says that He is God in all our hearts.

From that point on, you are taking a different route of 'symbolic' understanding and not 'literal', despite being told many times. So, where is the willingness to understand? My friend, it is you who have preconceived notions and a bias towards the way you wish to understand things.

You equate 'literal' interpretation as 'blind faith'! Is this understanding rational? Even an engineer first understands 'literally' and then makes a bridge/automobile etc. If that is what you call blind faith and reject, we would not have bridges/automobiles etc. on planet earth. In fact there would be no science, the way we see it today! You can question, but at least understand the right thing first! You want to understand the wrong thing (symbolic) and then as if this is not all, you criticize something without understanding!

p.s if you did not critique theory of relativity then you are accepting something illogically. So please understand what is logical and what is rational. If we could not ask questions until we got knowledge of all of the topic then we would never manage to understand anything. To accept the first step I need to ask questions to understand.

You should 'question', not 'criticize'! Two are different. Questioning shows willingness to understand. Criticizing shows you have 'preconceived ideas'.

If I say: I do not understand why is it like...such and such, in Islam; shows that I am trying to understand.

If I say: Islam is blah blah blah....shows I criticize because I have preconceived ideas.

Logic is to understand something properly first. Not just the basics. If you do not understand, you question, not criticize! When, by such questioning, you understand, then you form an opinion. If you do not agree, then you reject or criticize (if you want to; I would not do that, is what I know).

Contrary to what you are saying, it is illogical to 'not understand' something first and criticize it. The very fact you are criticizing without understanding means you have a bias.

 

[Rational_Mind]

I will give you one example here:

You had provided me with a link. After visiting the link, I came back to you and shared that the speaker has not answered the question raised by one in the audience.

You come back saying that "If you read once again it states that misinterpretation is the focus, people missed symbolics and metaphoric language and took them literally over time."

I told you, scriptures are the science of God. They should be understood literally, to follow the spirit. Symbolically means, you are opening it to interpretations according to reader's capability to understand. Do you understand mathematics or Physics literally or symbolically? Gave you the verse raised by one in audience, in the link. It translates as:

I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings. [B.G. 10.20]

You tell me "The very statement that you showed me is proof in itself that this was not a claim to Godhood."

It clearly says that He is God in all our hearts.

From that point on, you are taking a different route of 'symbolic' understanding and not 'literal', despite being told many times. So, where is the willingness to understand? My friend, it is you who have preconceived notions and a bias towards the way you wish to understand things.

You equate 'literal' interpretation as 'blind faith'! Is this understanding rational? Even an engineer first understands 'literally' and then makes a bridge/automobile etc. If that is what you call blind faith and reject, we would not have bridges/automobiles etc. on planet earth. In fact there would be no science, the way we see it today! You can question, but at least understand the right thing first! You want to understand the wrong thing (symbolic) and then as if this is not all, you criticize something without understanding!



You should 'question', not 'criticize'! Two are different. Questioning shows willingness to understand. Criticizing shows you have 'preconceived ideas'.

If I say: I do not understand why is it like...such and such, in Islam; shows that I am trying to understand.

If I say: Islam is blah blah blah....shows I criticize because I have preconceived ideas.

Logic is to understand something properly first. Not just the basics. If you do not understand, you question, not criticize! When, by such questioning, you understand, then you form an opinion. If you do not agree, then you reject or criticize (if you want to; I would not do that, is what I know).

Contrary to what you are saying, it is illogical to 'not understand' something first and criticize it. The very fact you are criticizing without understanding means you have a bias.

What standard do you follow. You use different logic. You read something with logic that the thing itself provides (contradiction, a gets you to b, you need to have b to get to a). Your definition of critique is not the one that anyone is familiar with, your own mix I think. Sorry but you are only hurting yourself, you lack the basic skills needed to make decisions. I cannot believe how unsafe life can be with the logic you follow. I think you use your logic on everything except when you speak on your faith. Please head to the books and study logic (especially faulty arguments), symbolism, and criticism.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

What standard do you follow. You use different logic. You read something with logic that the thing itself provides (contradiction, a gets you to b, you need to have b to get to a). Your definition of critique is not the one that anyone is familiar with, your own mix I think. Sorry but you are only hurting yourself, you lack the basic skills needed to make decisions. I cannot believe how unsafe life can be with the logic you follow. I think you use your logic on everything except when you speak on your faith. Please head to the books and study logic (especially faulty arguments), symbolism, and criticism.

Again you are missing the point.

You should give the credit to the speaker - Allah/Krishna of knowing what he is saying in the scriptures. When you take the indirect route of symbolics and metaphoric language, seeking inner/hidden meanings, two things happen.

1. The sincere ones end up deriving meanings, limited by their puny intellectual faculties.

2. The insincere ones get an opportunity to derive interpretations, suiting their convenience.

You might be sincere kinds, still, the end-objective is not realized, so it is only precious time wasted.

In the second case, philosophy or spirit of scripture is lost. Sorry, but this is at the heart of rise in fanaticism in Islam, the world over. Such religious interpretations, based on political/sense-gratification motives like power, money, greed etc., hurts the self and others too. Cases are all around. You do not have to head anywhere to verify the truth of what I am saying. Just the news channel.

 

[Rational_Mind]

Again you are missing the point.

You should give the credit to the speaker - Allah/Krishna of knowing what he is saying in the scriptures. When you take the indirect route of symbolics and metaphoric language, seeking inner/hidden meanings, two things happen.

1. The sincere ones end up deriving meanings, limited by their puny intellectual faculties.

2. The insincere ones get an opportunity to derive interpretations, suiting their convenience.

You might be sincere kinds, still, the end-objective is not realized, so it is only precious time wasted.

In the second case, philosophy or spirit of scripture is lost. Sorry, but this is at the heart of rise in fanaticism in Islam, the world over. Such religious interpretations, based on political/sense-gratification motives like power, money, greed etc., hurts the self and others too. Cases are all around. You do not have to head anywhere to verify the truth of what I am saying. Just the news channel.

You sound like a child. Please stop saying things that devalue everything else you said. Learn what symbolism is, what are the benfits, and disadvantages. Now about interpretations you yourself demonstrated how one can dodge clear verses because they choose to deny clear logic. If you study some basic language qualities you will learn that you are being selfish.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Sorry for the confusion, I did not mean it did not develop into newer languages that exist. I mean't the source it is written is essentially over in modern use are moved really far apart due to the time between now and when it was written. This is why it is so challenging to translate. It is hard to trace the changes due to lack of written preservation.

Also it seems that beginning of Vedic time period is actually quite likely to be a major stepping stone in complex societies. There is evidence of past societies that may have had classes but it is lacking in quantity and not very prominent.

Please read this article, explains how Vedas were preserved.

Textual Corruption in Vedas

Origin of Vedas, Their Inspiration, and Authority

No textual corruption in Vedas

Its not a challenge to read nor understand, if you use the right tools of interpretations.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Rational_Mind;2922018]From my understanding many of the Vedic Scriptures were oral and were later recorded physically. So why was there a restriction placed on only Brahman reading it after it was recorded.

To stop it being mistranslated.

Also when I am told not to use logic in reading scripture then I hold no value on the opinion of the commentator who wrote based on their feelings rather then logical understanding.

You should use the same logic when quoting the Vedas.

Could you also please show me the verse that you refer to which uses the word "represent" to explain how the head is intelligent class, the foot the labour class, etc. Until you give me a reference I would have to assume that it is simply your opinion.

Different people have different ways of interpreting anything, Like the talaban did with the Koran.

Brahmin was his mouth. Kshatriya were created from his arms. Vaishyas came from thighs and Shudras were born from his feet.

If taken only literally how does the mantra imply that Brahmins are superior and Shudras are inferior?

If taken literally how can one conclude from this mantra that Brahmins will take birth in family of Brahmins alone and Shudras in family of Shudras?

even if we interpreting it literally there's no way the Purush Sukta mantra has any meaning even remotely associated with birth-based casteism. Vedas stand for complete meritocracy and equal opportunities for all human beings.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

You sound like a child. Please stop saying things that devalue everything else you said. Learn what symbolism is, what are the benfits, and disadvantages. Now about interpretations you yourself demonstrated how one can dodge clear verses because they choose to deny clear logic. If you study some basic language qualities you will learn that you are being selfish.

I am only stating facts. So, please stop being choosy in what you want to hear. I have given you clear logic as to why symbolism should be avoided. There is none you have produced so far to support symbolism. What is literal, means to have faith, in the words of scripture. You somehow equate it with 'blind faith.' That is absurd rationale!

The QURAN Sura II: Baqara, states:

4. Waallatheena yu/minoona bima onzila ilayka wama onzila min qablika wabial-akhirati hum yooqinoona

4. And who believe in the Revelation
Sent to thee,
And sent before thy time,
And (in their hearts)
Have the assurance of the Hereafter.

5. Ola-ika AAala hudan min rabbihim waola-ika humu almuflihoona

5. They are on (true) guidance,
From their Lord, and it is
These who will prosper.

6. Inna allatheena kafaroo sawaon AAalayhim aanthartahum am lam tunthirhum la yu/minoona

6. As to those who reject Faith,
It is the same to them
Whether thou warn them
Or do not warn them;
They will not believe.

I present this for you to understand that even Quran says we should have faith in what is given in scriptures (words of Supreme Lord). Taking them as-it-is is believing...leads to true guidance. We should do some introspection and check the quality of our faith. It is the way of unfaithful to delve into symbolics and metaphors to arrive at mentally concocted and convenient meanings!

 

[Rational_Mind]

First you demonstrated use of symbolism and failed to produce a verse to show that it was literally a verse. You were asking for me to look for the verse in a page I found when I cannot even read that nor do I know someone who can. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous, (2:3)

And surely, it is safe with Us in the Mother of the Book, exalted and full of wisdom.(43:5)

These are verses of the Book of Wisdom, (31:3)

Verse references are going to be one behind in versions of the Quran that do not count the first verse bismillah.

 

[Rational_Mind]

To stop it being mistranslated.



You should use the same logic when quoting the Vedas.



Different people have different ways of interpreting anything, Like the talaban did with the Koran.



If taken only literally how does the mantra imply that Brahmins are superior and Shudras are inferior?

If taken literally how can one conclude from this mantra that Brahmins will take birth in family of Brahmins alone and Shudras in family of Shudras?

even if we interpreting it literally there's no way the Purush Sukta mantra has any meaning even remotely associated with birth-based casteism. Vedas stand for complete meritocracy and equal opportunities for all human beings.

You are on a completely different page. Thanks for the links you posted earlier, although the author is quite floating in ignorance and arrogance so his work really falls in my eyes. I have read some but I rather prefer reading an article or book by an actually capable writer. I found some online so I would be fine.

 

[A-ManESL]

As I understand the original topic was whether Krishna can be equated to God as we understand in Islam. (After that the discussion got convoluted and I haven't really perused the whole thread.) However it is my humble opinion that such an equation has two levels: it is flawed at the level of attributes and correct at the level of Transcendent Reality subsuming all attributes.

As per my understanding (and I am not a knowledgeable person) in Hinduism the many gods are seen as aspects of one central Reality or Godhead, which is called the Brahman. Brahman cannot possibly be described because it has no attributes, being the substratum of all attributes. Brahman does not act, being the substratum of all action; it simply is. It is the power of Brahman that acts. Brahman in association with its Power is called Ishwara (The rough equivalent of God). The three functions of Ishwara are personified in Brahma(creation), Vishnu(sustain) and Shiv(destruction). These also manifest themselves from time to time in human form: such as Rama and Krishna. These also have female principles associated with them, which represents their Power, like Parvati is associated with Shiv. These female principles themselves have many aspects represented through Kali(the aspect of death). In summary all these Gods and Goddesses represent dimensions of Brahman. A Hindu will readily agree that ultimately God(the Reality) is One and for this reason he may be called a monotheist.(His idea of monotheism is not identical to the Abrahamic idea as you can see.) He however does have the choice of directly worshipping the formless Reality (Vedanta philosophy) or from choosing from any number of cults which seek to celebrate in one aspect of that Reality. The various Gods and Goddesses do therefore represent one of the whole.

I think equating Krishna with Reality is correct when the idea of Krishna is being understood at the level of Transcendent Reality subsuming all attributes, and if we adopt this position we may also conclude there is a Krishna hidden among everyone and everything. However at another level it may not be appropriate, where Krishna with specific attributes is concretized; there he is representing a particular aspect of that Reality.

In Islam the approach is this: Unlike certain schools of Hinduism which blur the line between aspects of Reality and the Reality itself, Islam is essentially a meeting of man as such and God as such. There the idea of God is simply summarized in, "No visions can encompass Him, but He encompasses all visions-Quran 6:103", and so it is pure Reality, with attributes only capturing partial and incomplete pictures of Him.

At least this is my understanding.

Regards

 

[Vrindavana Das]

We seem to have divergent views on literal and symbolic/metaphorical interpretations in scriptures, so I take the help of Quran to put forth my point.

Like you, I too agree that Quran is a Perfect Book, full of wisdom and guidance for the righteous. Thus, we should believe in its words, as Allah’s revelations, with firm conviction and unwavering faith. Therefore, there is no room left for symbolic and metaphorical interpretations. So scriptures should be taken as the final authority and accepted as-it-is!

This mood, is echoed in the following verses:

3. Allatheena yu/minoona bialghaybi wayuqeemoona alssalata wamimma razaqnahum yunfiqoona
3. Who believe in the Unseen;
Are steadfast in prayer,
And spend out of what We
Have provided for them;

4. Waallatheena yu/minoona bima onzila ilayka wama onzila min qablika wabial-akhirati hum yooqinoona
4. And who believe in the Revelation
Sent to thee,
And sent before thy time,
And (in their hearts)
Have the assurance of the Hereafter.

5. Ola-ika AAala hudan min rabbihim waola-ika humu almuflihoona
5. They are on (true) guidance,
From their Lord, and it is
These who will prosper.

However, if you advocate the path of mental speculation with our finite intelligence, and arrive at symbolic or metaphorical interpretations, we are not (really) believing the fathomless and infinite intelligence & words of the infinite; Allah - The Almighty!

This sentiment, is echoed in the following verses:

6. Inna allatheena kafaroo sawaon AAalayhim aanthartahum am lam tunthirhum la yu/minoona
6. As to those who reject Faith,
It is the same to them
Whether thou warn them
Or do not warn them;
They will not believe.

7. Khatama Allahu AAala quloobihim waAAala samAAihim waAAala absarihim ghishawatun walahum AAathabun AAatheemun
7. God hath set a seal
On their hearts and on their hearing,
And on their eyes is a veil;
Great is the penalty they (incur).

8. Wamina alnnasi man yaqoolu amanna biAllahi wabialyawmi al-akhiri wama hum bimu/mineena
8. Of the people there are some who say:
"We believe in God and the Last Day;"
But they do not (really) believe.

9. YukhadiAAoona Allaha waallatheena amanoo wama yakhdaAAoona illa anfusahum wama yashAAuroona
9. Fain would they deceive
God and those who believe,
But they only deceive themselves,
And realize (it) not!

So you see, even without getting into any particular verse, we can arrive at a rational understanding of the correct spirit, of the correct path – literal or symbolic; with the help of infallible scriptures like Quran.

That is my opinion and take on the matter.

If you still say symbolic and metaphorical interpretation is the correct path, then in my view, you are dis-believing the initial verses cited above and following the latter verses.

If you still choose to differ, please let me know the rational and logic.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

First you demonstrated use of symbolism and failed to produce a verse to show that it was literally a verse. You were asking for me to look for the verse in a page I found when I cannot even read that nor do I know someone who can. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous, (2:3)

And surely, it is safe with Us in the Mother of the Book, exalted and full of wisdom.(43:5)

These are verses of the Book of Wisdom, (31:3)

Verse references are going to be one behind in versions of the Quran that do not count the first verse bismillah.

Smooth dance! What other steps do you know to avoid answers?

 

[Rational_Mind]

We seem to have divergent views on literal and symbolic/metaphorical interpretations in scriptures, so I take the help of Quran to put forth my point.

Like you, I too agree that Quran is a Perfect Book, full of wisdom and guidance for the righteous. Thus, we should believe in its words, as Allah’s revelations, with firm conviction and unwavering faith. Therefore, there is no room left for symbolic and metaphorical interpretations. So scriptures should be taken as the final authority and accepted as-it-is!

This mood, is echoed in the following verses:

3. Allatheena yu/minoona bialghaybi wayuqeemoona alssalata wamimma razaqnahum yunfiqoona
3. Who believe in the Unseen;
Are steadfast in prayer,
And spend out of what We
Have provided for them;

4. Waallatheena yu/minoona bima onzila ilayka wama onzila min qablika wabial-akhirati hum yooqinoona
4. And who believe in the Revelation
Sent to thee,
And sent before thy time,
And (in their hearts)
Have the assurance of the Hereafter.

5. Ola-ika AAala hudan min rabbihim waola-ika humu almuflihoona
5. They are on (true) guidance,
From their Lord, and it is
These who will prosper.

However, if you advocate the path of mental speculation with our finite intelligence, and arrive at symbolic or metaphorical interpretations, we are not (really) believing the fathomless and infinite intelligence & words of the infinite; Allah - The Almighty!

This sentiment, is echoed in the following verses:

6. Inna allatheena kafaroo sawaon AAalayhim aanthartahum am lam tunthirhum la yu/minoona
6. As to those who reject Faith,
It is the same to them
Whether thou warn them
Or do not warn them;
They will not believe.

7. Khatama Allahu AAala quloobihim waAAala samAAihim waAAala absarihim ghishawatun walahum AAathabun AAatheemun
7. God hath set a seal
On their hearts and on their hearing,
And on their eyes is a veil;
Great is the penalty they (incur).

8. Wamina alnnasi man yaqoolu amanna biAllahi wabialyawmi al-akhiri wama hum bimu/mineena
8. Of the people there are some who say:
"We believe in God and the Last Day;"
But they do not (really) believe.

9. YukhadiAAoona Allaha waallatheena amanoo wama yakhdaAAoona illa anfusahum wama yashAAuroona
9. Fain would they deceive
God and those who believe,
But they only deceive themselves,
And realize (it) not!

So you see, even without getting into any particular verse, we can arrive at a rational understanding of the correct spirit, of the correct path – literal or symbolic; with the help of infallible scriptures like Quran.

That is my opinion and take on the matter.

If you still say symbolic and metaphorical interpretation is the correct path, then in my view, you are dis-believing the initial verses cited above and following the latter verses.

If you still choose to differ, please let me know the rational and logic.

So you accept the Quran to be infallible when it clearly says past scriptures have been changed? I think you should read the Quran because you feel it conforms to your views when it actually rejects them in clear verses. Moreover it constantly warns about blind faith as that is how prior people rejected Messengers. Moreover Allah(swt) does not say to believe in me blindly, he says to see the Signs. It gives proof of Allah's existence and explains the attributes. When it says believe in the unseen what makes you think it says believe in the unseen without proof. That is simply foolish, I would reject any apparent God who says to believe without proof.

I think you are not understanding me. Verses can be literal, non-literal, or both. The problem is when taking literal or non-literal interpretation to contradict the scripture itself. For example past people like the Christians who took Jesus as God because he is called Son of God. Yet other people are also called children of God but they don't interpet it as such.

Sorry if you are failing to understand what I mean. I don't have so much time to spend. Please spend some time to understand some characteristics of symbolic language and its purpose.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

You are on a completely different page. Thanks for the links you posted earlier, although the author is quite floating in ignorance and arrogance so his work really falls in my eyes. I have read some but I rather prefer reading an article or book by an actually capable writer. I found some online so I would be fine.

Well that just your opinion, your entitled to it as much as i am to mine.

Hopefully at least this clears the doubt you had about the Varna system.

 

[A-ManESL]

So you accept the Quran to be infallible when it clearly says past scriptures have been changed?

Can you point the relevant verse please which say that a literal change has been done in past scriptures?

Regards

 

[Vrindavana Das]

So you accept the Quran to be infallible when it clearly says past scriptures have been changed? I think you should read the Quran because you feel it conforms to your views when it actually rejects them in clear verses. Moreover it constantly warns about blind faith as that is how prior people rejected Messengers. Moreover Allah(swt) does not say to believe in me blindly, he says to see the Signs. It gives proof of Allah's existence and explains the attributes. When it says believe in the unseen what makes you think it says believe in the unseen without proof. That is simply foolish, I would reject any apparent God who says to believe without proof.

I think you are not understanding me. Verses can be literal, non-literal, or both. The problem is when taking literal or non-literal interpretation to contradict the scripture itself. For example past people like the Christians who took Jesus as God because he is called Son of God. Yet other people are also called children of God but they don't interpet it as such.

Sorry if you are failing to understand what I mean. I don't have so much time to spend. Please spend some time to understand some characteristics of symbolic language and its purpose.

I have given you clear verses to support my views. If you are saying otherwise, then you are contradicting the teachings of Quran (the stated verses in my previous post).

In the example of Jesus being Son of God, there would not have been any confusion/contradiction, had the people stuck to 'literal' than the symbolic/metaphorical interpretations, to arrive at wrong conclusions like Jesus is God. You are only reinforcing what I am saying. As for everyone being a son of God; that is not a part of our discussion; so we leave it at that.

Please substantiate with verses, the following claims you make (underlined by me in you post above):

1. Quran clearly says past scriptures have been changed.
2. Quran, in clear verses, rejects taking verses in 'literal' sense.
3. What makes you think, that I say, we are to believe without proof?

We should 'question'. We should be convinced before accepting anything. This, however, does not mean that we leave the path of 'literal' interpretation of the verses, as shown by Prophets and Allah.
Path of 'symbolic and metaphorical' interpretations; that you are suggesting, it is nothing but mental speculation. It can cause a persons to go astray.

This is echoed in the very initial verses (Sutra I), to serve as a guide & as a warning, to readers of the Quran, who wish to go through the rest of this Holy Book:

6. Ihdina alssirata almustaqeema
6. Show us the straight way,

7. Sirata allatheena anAAamta AAalayhim ghayri almaghdoobi AAalayhim wala alddalleena
7. The way of those on whom
Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace,
Those whose (portion)
Is not wrath,
And who go not astray.

Therefore, your logic of using symbolic & metaphoric interpretation in understanding scriptures, is not acceptable. It is not supported by scriptures. It is mental speculation, nothing more. Thus, to my mind, spending any time trying to understand it, is a waste of time.

 

[Rational_Mind]

By your argument when I produce the verses you will then accept Islam and reject your prior faith?

We both know what the answer is. But if you answer yes with sincerity then I will produce the verse.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

LOL!

We are discussing to learn about each other's religion. Why are you making it conditional? You take care!

 

[Rational_Mind]

LOL!

We are discussing to learn about each other's religion. Why are you making it conditional? You take care!

Read your past posts. You are either weak at communication or are a five year old who fooled me into wasting my time trying to display your childish arguments to you.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Read your past posts. You are either weak at communication or are a five year old who fooled me into wasting my time trying to display your childish arguments to you.

If that is your excuse ... for not even being able to explain your own scripture