Why do people insist on it being perfect? Sometimes we reject something that we know is just plain wrong (fifty shekels...), and often we try to interpret something to mean what we want it to mean... isn't it possible the original was simply a fallible work, but with genuine value mixed in that was spotted by those who read it?
I think Eve is what you would call an ARCHETYPE. We're talking about a really, really early version of a work of art here. There's two of a few different species of animals (maybe plants also). But evolution hasn't been thought of yet. Reproduction probably isn't fleshed out too well. The idea of a planet isn't invented yet, and the Sun is still just a glob of light in the sky. We're talking early draft here. And the critters you're thinking of are not "species" with DNA and barriers to interbreeding. They're just more archetypes. There's one pair of dolphins out there and yes, they are the forerunners of icthyosaurs, mosasaurs, for all I know whale sharks. That is not a DNA-based relationship - that stuff hasn't been invented yet either. But we're talking six drafts out of, who knows, thousands, millions?But I'm still back there with Eve. What pressure! One woman to carry the entire responsibility for the DNA of an entire race!
Which begs the question about DNA and it's tendency to mutate without new genera.....
Non sequitur. What has elapsed time to do with this exchange?And yet, almost 4,000 years later, here we are.
You wrote "The NT replaced OT Levitical law with "Love God, Love Neighbor".What rules are you talking about?
I spent 7 years living in a Muslim majority country, and I guarantee you that the VAST majority or them eat, live, and breathe Islam. Just one example - the Muslims had more quotes from the Qur'an hanging on their office walls than pictures of their families.
It's almost as if it's part of the culture. Hinduism is much the same way. Christianity in America is a bit different, because no one has any real interest in following it. Certainly not those who push it the hardest.
Not exactly...people love to quote John 3:16 but fail to acknowledge what verse 36 of that chapter reveals...gonna be a lotta surprised people, huh...Christians have a free get-into-heaven card in Jesus. No matter how many sins they commit, all they have to do is profess their belief that Jesus died for their sins, and presto - the doors of heaven swing open. That frees them up to do whatever they want in this life.
That's an interesting observation, and I think I know why the adherence meter registers higher in Muslims than in Christians.
Christians have a free get-into-heaven card in Jesus. No matter how many sins they commit, all they have to do is profess their belief that Jesus died for their sins, and presto - the doors of heaven swing open.
Not only must they fight and die, but they have to do so with ****ing JOY!! Now, think Oct. 7 and the glee with which Hamas slaughtered Jews.
Rich people cannot get into Heaven according to the Bible. Yet rich people still promote Christianity.
Hamas' attack had nothing to do with religion. Especially since it wasn't just Muslims. According to Jeremy Scahill (one of the only journalists who actually does the work on this issue), there were around have a dozen militant groups involved in the attack, including Christian Palestinians.
Not exactly...people love to quote John 3:16 but fail to acknowledge what verse 36 of that chapter reveals...gonna be a lotta surprised people, huh...
"The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."
Nope, you simply cannot cherry pick or it seems that way...all scriptures on any given subject have to be considered in order to derive to the right conclusion of what the Bible is saying about that subject...Yes, you're right. The Bible does indeed contradict itself.
Nope, you simply cannot cherry pick or it seems that way...all scriptures on any given subject have to be considered in order to derive to the right conclusion of what the Bible is saying about that subject...
That was a non sequitur bargain sale.
No, I think I addressed you square on.
Me: "Christians have a free get-into-heaven card in Jesus. No matter how many sins they commit, all they have to do is profess their belief that Jesus died for their sins, and presto - the doors of heaven swing open. That frees them up to do whatever they want in this life.
Muslims don't have it that easy. Their god is a lot more demanding. Near the end of Islam's 22-year evolution when Mohamed's military strength was at its greatest, 'Allah' revealed Surah 9, which is a clear call-to-arms. Verse 9:111 spells out where 'Allah' finally landed in terms of what it takes to punch your ticket to heaven - "Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment."
Not only must they fight and die, but they have to do so with ****ing JOY!! Now, think Oct. 7 and the glee with which Hamas slaughtered Jews."
You addressed absolutely nothing from the above.
They are both on the subject of everlasting life...verse 36 takes the thought a step further than verse 16...exercise/belief/faith is a verb that requires action/obedience...Jesus emphasized that fact more than once...Mt 21:28-32...Mt 7:15-23...John 5:3...Luke 11:28...John 14:1...as do many other scriptures in the Bible...I didn't choose those quotes - you did. I merely commented on the obvious contradiction.
Fair enough.Non sequitur. What has elapsed time to do with this exchange?
You wrote "The NT replaced OT Levitical law with "Love God, Love Neighbor".
OT god gives man rules - NT god replaces them.
Those rules.
Assumes facts not in evidence.Fair enough.
The idea of rule of law in the old is that it should be followed by humanity, in order to obtain a right standing before a holy god. In the new, the rule of law is acknowledged as 'unfollowable' by humanity, and therefore a perfect advocate is needed to obtain that standing on our behalf. Thus in the new, there really is no rule or law that can help us obtain said standing. There is only faith in one who can. And did.
Again, assumes facts not in evidence.The new even makes the case that the PURPOSE of the old was to show us our inability to obtain right standing on our own. leading us then to the advocate who could. And did.
If you believe god is the author of the bible, then YES, god is capricious. And frankly, the god of the bible's caprice is among the least of its problems. That god is also genocidal, racist and misogynist in the extreme. We can include being petty, punitive, insecure and contradictory as well. And if that god wasn't already riddled with far too many of man's shortcomings and baser instincts, this one even goes so far as to brag about being jealous and vengeful! It certainly exhibits none of the qualities that would make it worthy of worship by any moral human being with a conscience. And yet if you believe what is written, that seems to be what it expects. Go figure.So, is God capricious?
Sounds like blasphemy to me. Are you sure you're qualified to speak for what were the intentions of the Divine? How did you come by this outlandish assertion? Did a burning bush or talking serpent tell you these things directly?Not at all. But he did insert rules and law into the relationship in order to reveal to ourselves our inability to follow them perfectly.
Just using the same book you're using to build your case.Sounds like blasphemy to me. Are you sure you're qualified to speak for what were the intentions of the Divine? How did you come by this outlandish assertion? Did a burning bush or talking serpent tell you these things directly?
Really? Please cite the chapter and verse in that book where god says he inserted "rules and law into the relationship in order to reveal to ourselves our inability to follow them perfectly." I don't recall any of that. I think you just made that up.Just using the same book you're using to build your case.
Speaking of which, are you as open to taking a look at those verses that show his love for you as you are the ones that you think do not?
The entire purpose of the law was not to bring life. Not even so that the complete rules and law of God would be followed. But to reveal sin as utterly sinful, and to bring us to Christ.Really? Please cite the chapter and verse in that book where god says he inserted "rules and law into the relationship in order to reveal to ourselves our inability to follow them perfectly." I don't recall any of that. I think you just made that up.
Nothing about revealing "to ourselves our inability to follow them perfectly".The entire purpose of the law was not to bring life. Not even so that the complete rules and law of God would be followed. But to reveal sin as utterly sinful, and to bring us to Christ.
"What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from the law, sin is dead.
Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. So I discovered that the very commandment that was meant to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Certainly not! But in order that sin might be exposed as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." Rom 7:7-13
AI Overview (Google)
Some passages in the Quran, when taken out of context, may appear to instruct Muslims to kill their enemies However, a closer examination of these verses within their broader context, and with consideration of accompanying verses and historical circumstances, reveals a more nuanced understanding.
Contextual Understanding of Relevant Verses:
- Self-Defense: Several verses, such as Quran 2:190, emphasize that fighting is permissible in self-defense against those who initiate aggression. They explicitly state, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors". This highlights that fighting is allowed only in response to an attack and prohibits exceeding necessary force.
- Response to Persecution: Some verses, like Quran 2:191, mention fighting and killing in the context of persecution, where Muslims were unjustly driven out of their homes. This was revealed to allow Muslims to defend themselves against those who oppressed and attacked them.
- Covenant Violations: Certain verses, such as Quran 9:5, are sometimes interpreted as promoting violence against non-believers. However, scholars suggest that these verses refer to specific historical situations,
- such as those who broke treaties and continued hostility towards Muslims.
- They do not advocate for the general killing of non-believers.
No so-called holy books are divinely revealed.
None of them.
- Stopping Aggression: Quran 2:193 states that fighting should continue until oppression ceases. However, it also clarifies that if the aggressors stop their hostility, then fighting must stop.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?