With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament.
>From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > Fair enough. > > Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. > There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the > retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus > Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. > > The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other > than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you > are confusing this with how islam treats women. > > You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in > special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we > call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who > justify it. > > Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of > studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot > of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by > faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical > statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as > fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like > Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is > round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. > > The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as > they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim > that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such > facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written > over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the > Earth was round. > > The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global > Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global > surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will > tell that the Bible is correct again and again. > > > > Jojo > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA > > As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the > error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is > factually true and must be believed as written. > > You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. > > This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in > its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as > property. > > Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all > human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. > > Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error > exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to > assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject > to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not > for me. > > > Cheers: Axil > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up "evolution" to preserve >> and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone >> all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt >> to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already >> encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new >> environment. And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect >> life. >> >> My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called >> microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian >> Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation >> and that a species can "evolve" into another species. It's this whole >> nonsense of "Tree of life" that says we all came from single celled >> organisms; that I have a problem with. >> >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA >> >> Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not >> interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that >> element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” >> >> Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say >> what God’s plan of creation is? >> >> Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup >> evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect >> life from the whims of the universe. >> >> >> Cheers: Axil >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each >>> day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA >>> sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo >>> sapiens. >>> This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from >>> one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand >>> as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to >>> discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during >>> that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there >>> are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. >>> The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that >>> Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian >>> Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and >>> relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. >>> Ditto Darwinian evolution. >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> >>> On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>> >>>> Axil, I think you mentioned this before. >>>> >>>> The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or >>>> is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. >>>> >>>> For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It >>>> is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't >>>> know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. >>>> >>>> People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume >>>> that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing >>>> up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not >>>> assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in >>>> chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof >>>> of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. >>>> >>>> The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called "Junk >>>> DNA" are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During >>>> microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. >>>> The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, >>>> not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the >>>> issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that >>>> automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is >>>> occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jojo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
