Key

Been dwelling on thoughts based on a debate I was reading recently in the comments section of a Facebook post. (Of course, there's always a debate of some kind there.) Thought I might get some better perspective here from my friends and brothers (and sisters). A person commented that with the New Testament, there are only really two commandments: 1. Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself. 2. Honor God above all other gods. The reason stated it was because the Old Testament was intended as a covenant with the Hebrews. Whereas the New Testament was a covenant with the Gentiles. It goes further. God initially gave ten commandments to the Hebrews, which were His laws for them to follow. Leviticus presented the Laws of Moses. Though it might be said it was divinely inspired, it could also be seen as laws of men. Which the Sarducci and Pharisee took to steps further, apparently. This lead to the hypocrisy that Christ took offense to and preached against to place focus back on God, not laws of men. As He commanded that His teachings and good news be spread to the many nations, (meaning preaching to gentiles), He sought to bring about the inclusion of the gentiles without conversion to Judaism. He sought peaceful coexistence, though He knew conflict was still possible because of His radical thinking. Christ had stated He did not come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them. He did not alter the Old Testament covenant with the Hebrews, but rather presented a new covenant for the gentiles in the New Testament, of which He became the sacrifice required for them. The commenter stated that Christians use the Laws of Moses, though it was never intended to apply to them (as they are not Hebrew or Jewish), but often overlook the two commandments Jesus presented, when preaching their biases. I can see some logic to this thinking, but am not formally educated on theological study. Is he right, or even close? What do you think? (Preemptively, sorry for the inevitable opening of the can of worms here.)

Greetings and welcome to the forum. Blessings and peace.

A Christian might address the situation according to something Jesus taught. "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off. If thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out..." With the reason being that without the offensive body part, one might have a better chance ascending to heaven. So, I guess, in that sense, their soul would be split in order to better the greater self? But that also opens another maze of inquiries. Such as: if the soul can be split, does that also create separate identities? If the body part is supposedly descended, how does the eternal torment work then? etc.

No, no, Dave. It's: "good point", "I totally agree", "right on", or .

Alas, your toe was never "aware" of you, as you were of it, or even of yourself. If the DNA is sentient, and still living, then it would only have an identity of itself, not you, thus can't be you.

So, you're son is choosing the pairs to mate, but the dogs are the ones doing the work, thus nature is making the changes.

Micro or macro in evolution, still all evolution to me, else it wouldn't be evolution.

Congratulations and good cheer to you! Hope you achieve your goals with satisfaction and joy. Blessings and peace to you.

Selective breeding? Still sounds like evolution to me. How else to get black from white, or vice versa? Evolution theory, btw, also can cover changes in just one species.

Assuming from Trump's repetitious comments, I'd be thinking that "clean coal" would be worth more than clean dirt.

As I read this thread, it occurred to me that one simple statement of yours could be used to prove evolution, in a way. You mentioned your belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans. From that, one could logically conclude they were of the same race, since Eve was created from Adam's rib, thus share similar DNA. So it begs the question: how did we get all the different races of men we have today? An argument may be that God did create other men, but kept only Adam and his mate in Eden. Okay. But then He created "the flood" that swallowed the world, leaving only Noah and his brood safe in the ark. What then?

I have also heard, "Time is a teacher of manners." So, by this, it is also assumptive that morals can be a learned thing. Perhaps more of a personal experience thing than something that may be taught by others, though that can be a variable to some degree, as well.

All he is saying is what you conclude to be true may only be true to yourself, not necessarily for others, I assume.

What afterlife does the question involve? That of a spiritual realm, or of the heavenly/paradise variety, or something else?

It has been said, and proven sometimes, that a survey can have virtually any meaning any particular group can spin on it. It often depends on what questions are asked and how they are stated. Then the next part of the equation is on how the answers are phrased. So, as reliable as the surveyor may be, doesn't mean the statistics can't be skewed to one view.

Well, you know, some are looking for a peaceful solution. Probably they think it'd be mighty peaceful after that.

Welcome. Feel free to browse and/or contribute. There is much here to learn, debate, or just plain have fun with. We're much like family. Sometimes we fight a little bit, but often we support each other. Blessings and peace.

I don't think he preached anarchy, but rather to question authority of those who made rules beyond the ones given by God. He rocked the status quo by inducing another mindset that made a little more sense and achievable.

Hmm... Does require some thought, doesn't it? First statement: If considering a belief system (Judaism, Catholic, Buddhism, etc), then faith is a choice. Within a system, choice may be limited. Example: Many Christians hold that free will is merely choice that allow us accept or deny what God has commanded of them. You are free to choose what will take one to heaven or hell. But, outsiders see this as not having a choice, at all. It is commandments that must be obeyed. These outsiders also question how an all knowing God can allow choice, knowing the end results or He is not all knowing. He does not wish us to perish, but He is all powerful? Why say for us to repent while knowing if we will do so or not? If He doesn't know what choice we will make, but only the possible outcomes of those choices, than He is not truly all knowing. Outsiders see contradiction. Or do they simply choose to see it that way. Second statement: Again, using Christianity as an example, as I am more familiar with that faith based system than others, believers follow that God allows choice to test the faithful. That we are as we should be if we do not repent from sin, which is the only true choice, aside from acceptance of Him. Outsiders can not help be see there are choices if they believe we are shaped by our experiences and shared knowledge, for that is a process of ongoing decisions to have been made. As for the "he is wrong, I am right" argument? Man hates to be wrong about anything. Man equally hates the unknowable. This is why man strives for knowledge or faith. (Which can be seen as yet another choice.) As for the last two questions: Peace is subjective to how one personally defines it. Thus, it is obtainable according to however one wishes to pursue it.

Out of curiosity, does this belief system allow for the irrational or anything that defies natural order?

Ever been told to "trust no one", but didn't listen because you suddenly didn't trust him?

Hmm...top 3? Food, shelter, and wife. Not necessarily in that order, though. Humor is in top 10, or likely my wife would kill me.

Ah, but it's the symbolism, not the pill that determines the reality, hence the two choices.

Was unintentional! Sorry, Jonathan. But we all know it was Dan's original quote.

Yah, I enjoyed that trilogy. Enjoyed them more at home with captions and the sound turned off. Hate hearing Keanu.