The Homininae and Ponginae separated from each other about 12.5 million years ago in Miocene era. The most well-known fossil genus of Ponginae is Sivapithecus, consisting of several species from 12.5 million to 8.5 million years ago. It differs from orangutans in dentition and postcranial morphology. Sivapithecus was about 1.5 metres (5 ft) in body length, similar in size to a modern orangutan. In most respects, it would have resembled a chimpanzee, but its face was closer to that of an orangutan. The shape of its wrists and general body proportions suggest that it spent a significant amount of its time on the ground, as well as in trees. It had large canine teeth, and heavy molars, suggesting a diet of relatively tough food, such as seeds and savannah grasses. - Info from Wikipedia I do not claim that great grand-uncle Sivapithecus was vegetarian.
Ah .. but this thread is in the Abrahamic section. We are monotheists, you know It is a given that the G-d of Abraham exists.
..whatever that means.. You speak as if you were here and witnessed it all Saying that mankind evolved is pretty obvious, but HOW and WHY that happened is another thing entirely.
I am sorry, Mr. Mohammad_Musa that I ventured here unknowingly. I retreat. Kindly accept my apologies. Yeah, human evolution in science is as clear as if we were witnessing it.
OK, but that's your tribe's sacra doctrina. It's mediated by scholars, and as in all walks of life some are good, some are not so good; some are motivated by a love of reason, truth and justice, some are motivated by more partisan considerations. I'd rather IO discuss the better of us, rather than the lesser. Flag wavers are found in all walks, but there are also those who just try to do the right thing, regardless of creed. They do not wave flags, condemn others or make a big deal of things, about themselves or anyone else. The silent majority. They are the Blessed of the Beatitudes (in my sacra doctrina) whether they are Christians or not, they are blessed by virtue of what they do, rather than by what tribe they belong to.
I'm often not sure what tribe I actually belong to.. ..but of course, Muslims believe the Qur'an is authored by G-d Himself. The passage I quoted is not wrong, in my experience. In Islam alone, I see the people attend congregations and often criticise those that don't belong to their sect/tribe. I have to say too, that most Christians claim that they are the only ones who can be saved, and so on. That is true, but they seem to be in a minority. As the time approaches armageddon, the Prophet Muhammad told us that ignorance when it comes to religious knowledge will increase. This is what seems to be happening .. an increase in nationalism, while claiming to be Christian, Jew or Muslim etc. I know it's being negative, but I think it is important to be aware of. The natural inclination is to side with those from your religion or tribe. People can let you down. Almighty God does not.
Yep, their dogma. I wouldn't call that statement Divine or inspired, really. It's sociology 101, isn't it? I'm not knocking the Qur'an in saying this, just pointing out that such observations are not dependent on divine revelation. The bits that refer to Allah in the verses cited are, of course, a matter of faith. Yes, that's a literalist reading of our faith, while most people of other faiths don't believe it, because they believe that they are the ones who are saved ... so it goes ... I rather think they're the silent majority. Every age sees that in itself.There was never an age that didn't. (Frankly, between us and the other oldies here, I think it's a sign of getting old ) Amen. To err is human, to forgive is divine. The Bible doesn't exactly say it, but it's explicit in the text.
Hmm, I wouldn't call that dogma. One either believes that the Qur'an is authored by G-d, or they don't. The NT does not claim to be written by G-d, neither does it use the "first person" [ as G-d ] in its texts. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, has passed a series of decrees in ecumenical councils. That is more correctly called dogma, imo, whether one considers the councils to be inerrant or not. There seems to be problems with the dogma around abortion atm, for example. It is not an easy issue to resolve. That's the trouble with "law" .. where does one draw the line? What can be considered an exception, and what cannot?
Dogma: A religious or philosophical tenet or principle, from the Greek 'dogma' (δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" via the verb dokein, "to seem good". Dogma and Credo, both. We Catholics didn't invent the terms, although people seem to think we did! Yes, as per the above definition. All religions do that. Science has its dogmas. Yep. All religions have issues with the practice, Roman Catholicism is not unique in that regard. Islam forbids abortion after the ensoulment of the foetus, which is regarded as happening on the 120th day. Quite.
Most people are angered by insults. In fact insults are mostly used as a purposeful device to awaken anger? Islam has no central council? Correct? An individual is free to interpret the words of the Quran to their own understanding? There are the Five Pillars, but otherwise there is no authority 'church structure' in Islam? Your own personal faith is derived from what you believe is revealed to yourself directly by God via His words in the Quran?
..it depends what you mean.. If we look at Iran, for example, they have a structure of Ayatollah, and various bodies under him that interpret "law" according to their understandings / beliefs. Every individual is free to follow what they like, regardless of their religion. All religions can be politicised. We have to have governments, but should we consider them as a moral authority? Yes and no. Yes, we should respect and obey them .. but not if they deviate from what we know to be truth. The last Islamic global "church authority" was the Ottoman Empire
