In response to:
there are at least 3 different descriptions of the seven days of creation in Genesis chapters 1-3, alone. That doesn't mean that they are not in correlation to each other.
And the plethera of contradictions are not contradictory, when taken in context.
As far as an eye for an eye you evidently have no concept of when or why that directive was given to the Israelites through Moses
so I shouldnt be surprised that you have no Idea that it is not a contradiction of -- turn the other cheek -- stated several thousand years late in the new testiment.
People don't usually believe what they read -- they read what that believe-- meaning they can not - or will not-clear their minds of their own preceptions in order to understand what is truely being said .
'People don't usually believe what they read -- they read what they believe-- '
What a splendid piece of wisdom from Omega for a change (just had to be a bit nasty there at the end in keeping with my . . . noble, elitist, aristocratic character and indeed disagreeable attitude)!
However, ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ is a complete contradiction of God’s Law, regardless of the context in which either was given IN A SENSE because they both appear in the same book/Holy Bible. Because it makes one wonder! If biblical laws must be re-evaluated as the world progresses and people and technology evolve (and that is the supposed justification for such a contradiction or contradictions), why must we then hang on to even Christ’s teachings two thousand years later? Surely they need a reappraisal also in accordance with the same justification Omega gives? And what is more vehemently apposed nowadays than a reappraisal of anything biblical!
The Holy Bible is one book. In the first Testament we are told eye for eye, tooth for tooth; in the second, to turn the other cheek. What a contradiction indeed! There is something already wrong with the moral teaching of an eye for an eye in the first place (regardless of the times, it is inciting revenge!), and there is also something wrong with ‘turn the other cheek’ as a moral prerogative, that is all to clear to any realist. I say: preempt a strike or defend the other cheek from being struck. But I do not condone striking. I condone protecting yourself from harm and your right to. Nay, your instinct to!
No greater contradiction may be drawn in the entire Holy Bible than between the Old Testament and New Testament by virtue of being both found in the same book.
And yet we are told that Christ did not come to change the Old Testament laws but enforce them?
However, in his defense, my own philosophical interpretation is that when Christ said he did not come to change the Old Testament laws but enforce them, he was not lying
He came to enforce them – but WITHOUT force. I believe there is much to be said for my interpretation - to do away with the ‘contradiction conundrum’ between the Old Testament and the New.
Christ was a revolutionary!!!
I have even called Christ in the past, ‘the rebellious son of God’: God saying we will all return to dust, and Jesus saying ‘in me you will have eternal life’
But enforce them without force he did indeed, and wrote them in many hearts. One way or another, Christ marks a remarkable change in human morality forever!!!
