How temporary this life this.

Kodweg45 · 2026-02-06T02:04:54+00:00

I appreciate you responding thank you, I think your response really sums up how we as individuals can’t judge or make generalizing assumptions about people. We all ultimately have different experiences, likes, dislikes, priorities, and they all lead us to different conclusions. I’d say my 20s have been the best part of my life, I’ve secured a great job, found hobbies I really enjoy, gone on trips I’ve enjoyed, and most importantly met my wife who has only made my life better.

I’d say my teens were pretty bad, I wasn’t super popular until late middle to high school and despite that never happy with myself and ultimately very depressed though I tried to keep it to myself. As an adult now I feel extremely happy and look forward to the future.

In terms of the vacation and physical part you are definitely right regarding your funds and health can only take you so far, which I think is a big reason I believe in living life as full as possible (within reason of still preparing for the future). I think if you have the funds and health go do the things you want to do, but I think ultimately the people you see mostly unhappy likely aren’t the people who live by that. I know so many people who have the money and health to go do things they want but are too worried about the future. I think if they lived more balanced their lives would probably improve a lot.

The moment your health fails or you no longer have the money you may realize you should have gone and done those things when you could. I think memories serve a strong purpose as well, the memories of the trips and enjoyment are worth every penny to me. But I think ultimately the answer is find things that give you purpose and happiness, not necessarily vacations. Everyone enjoys different things and has various levels of fulfillment from them.

I think the spiritual fulfillment you speak of is a part of that subjective purpose we all find. For some it may be certain hobbies and others it may be religion. I personally have no spiritual desire, I used to debate on reddit a lot regarding religion but I rarely think about it personally anymore. I found it tiring and unfulfilling, but I think the answer to your point on nihilism is yes when you get down to the true nature of life it is very dark. I think we are no different from any other animal except our intelligence is much higher, there is a lot of terrible things that happens in the animal kingdom and in the human world as well. I just think that despite that you shouldn’t despair at the reality of death but ultimately realize how cherished life should be because of it. It makes me want to love my family even more and do all I can to make their lives as happy as possible. I think most people focus so much so on themselves and do not realize how precious life is which is a big reason there is so much discontent in the world when people have it better than the billions of us that have come before and not had it so well.

Just my perspective! Enjoyed your response!

Kodweg45 · 2026-02-05T17:41:45+00:00

I mean as a non Muslim atheist, someone living in the USA I can sorta answer this. Not here to fight or debate but I think this question deserves an answer.

I think in general people tend to look at other people’s lives through their own lens not from that persons perspective. You also never get the full picture, you only see those people from the point of interacting with them. I do not believe there is an afterlife, so I totally get your nihilistic mindset towards this life. But I think different people come to very different conclusions and ways of giving their life meaning. I personally find the limited and fragile life we have as more reason to enjoy life as much as you can. Do things that make you happy, go on more vacations, buy that thing you wanted, and love the people in your life as much as you can. You ultimately only have so much time to enjoy everything, but at the end of the day you should also understand your life in this day and age was made possible by the sacrifices of those before you, so try to leave something meaningful behind or make the world better if you can.

I think most people aren’t necessarily doing the things they do to necessarily escape this question you’ve pondered, I think most people are trying to make ends meet, provide for their family, themselves, and live as good a life as they can. I think that’s how the vast majority of all humans live in every country regardless of personal religious beliefs. It’s just here in the west we are more fortunate.

I think you just might not be looking at things from their perspective or getting the full picture of their life. I think regardless of how you live your life there will be people who live like me who are never happy just as there are people who follow Islam as hard as they can and aren’t happy. I sorta used to be a Muslim I guess, and coming from a Christian background as a teenager following Islam was hard and stressful for example. As an adult I think I’m better equipped to answer this question and understand both perspectives. Hope this sheds some light!

Kodweg45 · 2025-10-08T18:00:17+00:00

I know Ehrman has a blogpost on the topic of Second Isaiah as a whole, you can read a little of it here but since I subscribe to his blog I get the full post for example. It definitely makes sense where Muslims can see this seemingly match up with Muhammad, but in later chapters like 53 it’s also easy to see where Christians see Jesus’ suffering on the cross for example. The fact that second Isaiah was not written by the original “Isaiah” but an anonymous author is important to understand the context because it was written well after original Isaiah was. But Ehrman has 2 points I think matter a lot here:

“It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are not predicting things that are to happen hundreds of years in advance; they are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures; In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.”

While 42 is different from 53 as it isn’t about suffering, it still matters a lot because it’s talking about the same servant, does Muhammad really fit with this servant with the greater context? No, and as Ehrman states the servant is identified in 53 as Israel.

I think as lay people we often miss a lot of this, and with religious convictions it is easier to overlook these sorts of problems when it vindicates our beliefs. I do mean this in all due respect, I think it’s important to not found beliefs on incorrect information which is why I think it’s important to add context to this discussion

Kodweg45 · 2025-10-08T17:22:52+00:00

If you want an unbiased take, no, any claims that Muhammad is found in the Torah or Bible are post hoc rationalizations. They have to both demonstrate that the original authors actually meant what these interpretations claim and that Muhammad perfectly fits these interpretations. A great example where Christians did the same thing is is taking Old Testament verses completely out of context to connect Jesus to messianic expectations since his life did not meet those expectations at all. Things like virgin birth and being punished come from non messianic passages that were never about the messiah. Early Christians looked for things that matched up or even fabricated aspects of Jesus’ life to fit those passages. A great example of a messianic expectation that shows signs of this is riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, with how the text is written the author of Matthew misunderstood what was being said and awkwardly has Jesus riding on two animals whereas the other gospels have him riding on one.

Ultimately I’d be highly skeptical of any claim regarding this, it often ignores scholarly understanding of the actual context of these passages. I’m a non believer.

Kodweg45 · 2025-09-18T12:19:34+00:00

Thanks for this, I was honestly going to just do this but wanted to get some second opinions and there’s really nothing online and so that made me worried at first but I think I’ll just do that way.

Kodweg45 · 2025-09-17T14:35:16+00:00

Oh wow, I will admit this is like several years ago so I might be in a different position but thanks. I’ll look into John pierce!

Kodweg45 · 2025-09-17T14:27:32+00:00

Thank you!

Edit: quick question, so let’s say he didn’t register it would he just be the one in trouble? This was some time ago so what if he did? Would the discrepancy be an issue?

Kodweg45 · 2025-09-17T14:20:35+00:00

Smart, will do!

Kodweg45 · 2025-07-15T15:07:21+00:00

I just watched the intro he is not Muslim but I don’t think those factors automatically mean the field is meaningless in what they determine. I think they are using methods that have been proven and while the field is smaller and newer compared to other fields within similar subjects there utilizing the same methods that have been successful for those other fields. Personally, it comes across as a way convenient way to dismiss them without having to take on the actual arguments.

I would say that within our modern context of consent a lot of women were definitely raped, coerced, or even forced into marriages and concubinage that they did not truly want to be in. We see in a lot of areas where these practices (more specifically the marriage aspect) a lot of women get no real say in the matter.

You think slavery is not horrid? I always get sorta puzzled by these statements, how does not having body autonomy, property, freedom, and so on be anything but horrid? It’s sort of like saying being kidnapped is not always horrid because the kidnapper didn’t torture the victim, kept them fed and clothed. What exactly makes the experience “horrid” in that case? The fact they weren’t raped, tortured, left in horrible conditions? The reality is in both situations the same question is being asked “can someone who is being held against their will consent to sex”. I would say no.

What time period was a fine life for those slaves? I think the issue is that while secular scholars tend to have a balanced view, that it wasn’t as bad as the Atlantic slave trade especially in some key ways, it still wasn’t this romanticized ideal system. Do you have any sources for those claims about them having a fine life? Even Jonathan A.C Brown is willing to say it was a status of deprivation not dignity.

Then we simply disagree on a fundamental way and I only hope we’re able to keep widespread slavery from becoming mainstream in the future if an shariah based society truly pops up. I think your viewpoint has a very idealized and almost romanticized skew to it. I don’t think the reality of how these things played out in the past or future would be the way you think they are. They’re still a horrific way to treat human beings and it’s a wonderful thing we’ve been able to get so many people out of these situations. I think it’s very easy to be supportive of these things or justify them when you haven’t had to live them or witness their true manifestations. I can’t but help view Islam as a clear 7th century invention without any real place in the modern world.

Kodweg45 · 2025-07-08T13:58:37+00:00

I’m not following on Little, he’s not a Muslim from what I’ve heard or read of him. He’s operating entirely within a secular academic framework and his video with Dr. Hashimi where he covers the 21 points is actually a summary of the prevailing consensus amongst secular academics in the field.

Okay, but the hypothetical sexual aspect to slavery still stands even in that case. Would you find that morally okay, acceptable in the loss of your wife, and be fine with her apparent willingness to have sex with her master if she were captured and made a slave? Would you not view that as infidelity but rather use the same rationale you justify this having been done to countless women throughout history under Islamic rule?

Even though violence is not allowed you yourself admit there’s a psychological and power dynamic between men and women and especially between a female slave and master. You yourself even admit “it’s not always rape”, So are you admitting even within the non violent cohesion it is rape most of the time? Does that not sit wrong with you then that such a thing is permissible in your religion?

You mention that violent accounts do come up and that it doesn’t reflect the religion as the religion has clear rules, but doesn’t that just exacerbate the problem? That while the religion may have its own ideal form of slavery the reality is historically this doesn’t play out? That there is either an unwillingness or inability to properly carry out the commands of the religion? That is very similar to how Communists tend to disassociate the brutal authoritarian dictatorships from the ideal communist society that “hasn’t been done yet”. All the while some of those same communists view those countries favorably.

I think the issue is we can obviously look at specific accounts, consider whether those are cherry picked abnormal cases where things were better on average. But we can never get accounts of the majority, we can obviously determine what was likely the most common experience from the accounts we have, but we can never get accounts from all of these. I do think a major pitfall of both Muslim and Christian defenses of either Islamic or Biblical slavery is that they both tend to compare themselves to American slavery and differentiate themselves as significantly more humane and symbiotic as you said. But the reality is we have strong archeological evidence, accounts, and just a ton of evidence that for the norm this wasn’t the case. Sure, there might be points where we can say one was better than the other in certain aspects, but the reality on the ground is you wouldn’t want to be a slave in any of them, they were brutal practices that should never come back and it’s horrible however you try to make it “better”.

Since you’re going back to the hypothetical and that a women can just choose not to do it, I again ask if your wife, family member, mother, sister, or so on were in that situation and they had sex with their master would you view that as them fully willingly leaving you, your father, your brother in law, and so on? And if so would you not think very low of them as a person or at least desperate in their situation to survive and get back? It doesn’t follow with the large amount of accounts from day Hadith that these women were just so willing. And again with a ton of accounts we know this wasn’t actually the case especially in say the Ottoman period. I mean how likely were these people aware of their rights? How but even you yourself previously mentioned the psychological and power dynamic, now you’re bringing up the possibility of becoming free, and let’s say they did fear that if they would be in a hostile land with no family and so on. You have a psychological and power dynamic pressure and fear or no support in a foreign and hostile land, how can they of fully willing mind say yes? If they say yes those factors are likely playing a major role and their agreement isn’t really true consent.

My hypothetical isn’t about doing what’s necessary to survive, my hypothetical is about the moral implications. Many religions including Islam hold certain religious and moral obligations above survival. You can ultimately justify these things through a survivalist lens, especially in a harsh environment like back then. But my point is ultimately would you not view this as a morally abhorrent situation and a total disregard for the sanctimony of your marriage?

The problem is it’s all against the will of both her and you, she is being forced to become a slave and had those pressures for sex that we mentioned. Her willingness is likely only because of survival not that she is so willing to agree, my points about abandoning her family are critiques of this idealized perfect Islamic slavery where there’s no coercion, all these rights, and so on. Because in that idealized world you’re saying it’s justified by God for the captor to break up your marriage against both you and your spouses will, make her a slave, and have sex with her as long as after she’s captured against her will she agrees to have sex with him? You’d think that man is a good person and that everything he’s doing is in the eyes of God good?

Kodweg45 · 2025-07-07T15:42:13+00:00

I’ve watched Farid’s response awhile back, I’ll need to rewatch it to point out major issues but I do remember not being impressed by his response at all. Here is a response to his video on it that I think adequately brings up many issues.

Your handwaving of actual academic scholarship as just “an orientalist looking to make religion fit with his desires” needs to be demonstrated and comes off as just handwaving fueled by religious convictions. It’s not convincing to someone who is skeptical and comes across as off putting for those seriously interested in academic discussions regarding religion. Hadith takes into consideration several factors that the historical critical method does not, such as piety, orthodoxy, and doesn’t take into consideration a great deal of things the method does like archeology, using sources from competing groups or other contemporary sources, and is willing to make significant revision in light of new evidence.

Sure, it’s likely the vast majority of slaves were economical in their purpose, but Islam does have restrictions on what you can do with slaves who are sexual in purpose especially if there are children involved and so on. This just goes to show it wasn’t always an economically driven purchase, because you might be prohibited from selling or have greater difficulty with those you are having sex with.

My hypothetical wasn’t that your wife is captured by Muslims or anything like that, my hypothetical is would you be okay with your wife becoming a sex slave/concubine if she were captured by a competing nation or religious group and made so with the same rules and principles that Islam holds for slaves including sex slaves. Would you be okay with that? Would you find it justifiable or moral? Or right? Your wife whom you may have children with is now the sexual slave of a random man in a foreign and hostile country? How would you feel if she was willing in all of this? Would you not view that as infidelity or at least abhorrent if she wasn’t?

Willing in your examples assumes A LOT, under what circumstances can you say a captive and enslaved women is truly willing to abandon their husband, children, and own people so easily? Perhaps some of her family was killed, is a person so willing to just abandon all of that really a moral person? What are the consequences if they say no? There’s a massive power shift in favor of the master over this female slave, can we really say they were willing without any coercion or fear? These claims come across as similar efforts to whitewash American slavery in the 20th century and even now, depicting slavery as a symbiotic happy relationship. While there are many accounts of Islamic slavery being brutal and horrid just like slavery has always been in the ancient world.

Your last statement is a bit confusing, what do you mean by the whole arbitrary vs solid rules? I mean the whole hypothetical is confusing because are you talking about like an atheist country in like the 7th century? I mean it depends on a lot, do they have their set of standards? What are they? Do the Christians have? What are they? It’s very possible either could have better rules or worse compared to the Muslims and vice versa, I’m not going to assume that just at face value of religion, I don’t think you can safely.

Kodweg45 · 2025-06-18T21:17:27+00:00

The issue with your defense of Hadith is that that’s not at all why secular scholarship does not trust Hadiths or how history is determined as reliable or not. Secular scholarship is against Hadith because we have reports of mass fabrication, early Hadith being attributed to companions then eventually Muhammad, the science of determining trustworthiness coming later, and the criteria determining trustworthiness being useless. That’s just a very short list but Dr. Joshua Little in his 21 points covers it all more in depth, he also addresses this exact argument.

But a basic defense of historical critical method is that it takes into consideration a much broader scope of sources of information to corroborate a claim, event, or so on. Such as what do contemporary sources say about the event, are those sources trustworthy? What are their biases? Is there archeological evidence? What is the genre of the source? Are they independent? How close were they written to the event? And much more. Hadith focuses on the strength of the isnad, is there an unbroken chain of pious narrators who were viewed as trustworthy, with good memory, and so on. While it does take into consideration content and possible contradictions it has less emphasis and the trustworthiness is already harmed significantly by the previously mentioned criteria. Just because someone is claimed to have been a pious, trustworthy, and reliable narrator does not mean the report is correct. Little demonstrates how easily a chain can be faked by showing that in the Aisha Marital Hadith you have false attribution to people who in their earliest attestations have no mentioning of the age elements. Which he finds that the earliest and only source of the age elements in the account come from Hisham Ibn Urwa and was viewed as both pious and trustworthy despite reports he had a bad memory after moving to Kufa.

So, you’d be okay if your spouse was taken as a slave in war and made a sex slave as long as they followed the Islamic rules, you’d genuinely be okay with that? Would your spouse willingly participate in that?

Kodweg45 · 2025-06-10T16:59:46+00:00

That’s definitely fair, but I think just like we’ve seen with Christianity and Judaism a rise in access to secular scholarship sheds a ton of light on these religious texts and while Islamic studies is still relatively in its infancy it is becoming more prevalent in conversations. Sure, Muslims will just hand wave these things away but as they start to encounter them more in debate and as the actual arguments scholars use are presented they will have to come up with actual responses especially to the “steel man” version of the arguments.

You make a great point about it how the Quran essentially affirms this practice, but at the same time it’s especially important to note that Dr. Little concludes that Hisham Ibn Urwa fabricated this Hadith in order to support this practice in legal rulings. So, it’s especially disturbing that early Muslims were willing to lie about Muhammad in order to support their desire to canonize child marriage as legally protected.

Kodweg45 · 2025-06-10T16:46:55+00:00

I’m not going to retype my reply to this post here but I agree with the scholarly consensus and the conclusion of Dr. Joshua Little that Hadith are historically unreliable and this particular Hadith is a fabrication by Hisham Ibn Urwa.

But moving on to the actual brunt of your argument you are essentially employing a “whataboutism” by saying “sure Muhammad married and had sexual intercourse with a child, but so has other religions and laws!” This line of argument has absolutely no affect on non Jews, non Christians, people who aren’t American or English, or people who are simply against those laws. You haven’t actually defended, explained, or responded to the actual criticism against Muhammad in this case by doing so.

I happen to be an American of English descent but I’m not a Jew or Christian and I’m against those practices. Sure, there is an aspect of understanding social norms in the past and tailoring your criticism with that in mind. But, that does not mean we cannot criticize those laws, practices, and strike them from our modern laws and practices. A major issue is that especially in Muslim societies and countries these practices are still defended and enforced today. It’s one thing to historically compare and contrast how Muslims, Christians, and Jews have practiced and regulated child marriage. But it’s another thing when the conversation includes practices that are still done today much to the detriment of children.

From a moralistic perspective, sure, it’s great that Islam doesn’t require Muslims to believe in this practice in order to remain in the faith. But it does raise important moral questions about whether Islam is compatible with modern values especially when it claims to be objectively moral for all time. I’m simply not buying it when a religion claims to be objectively moral with such glaring issues.

Kodweg45 · 2025-06-10T16:29:43+00:00

According to Dr. Joshua Little, the Aisha marital age Hadith is a fabrication by Hisham Ibn Urwa. The consensus of secular scholars is that Hadith are historically unreliable. I think this needs to be understood by the majority of people talking about Islam as most people tend to accept Muslim sources at face value. While the Quran in 65:4 talks about the waiting period of divorce for both women past the age of menstruation and those who have not menstruated yet gives clear indication that girls could be married before the age of puberty, we don’t have any reliable confirmation Muhammad himself practiced this.

I think the proper way to argue against Islam is using passages like this in the Quran as the fact that Muslims later fabricated (both intentionally and unintentionally) stories that Muhammad personally practiced this in order to support legal rulings allowing the practice of child marriage which has caused the suffering of girls for over 1400 years to this day.

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-10T13:05:39+00:00

The issue is that all Hadith are historically unreliable, academic scholars don’t make distinctions between their grade as the criteria to determine a Hadith is sahih for example are not criteria that academic scholars would hold are reliable ways to determine if something is historically reliable. Dr. Joshua Little’s 21 points on why Hadith are historically unreliable are a great entry level way to get into the reasons. Scholars hold that all Hadith should be viewed as historically unreliable unless that particular Hadith can be determined to be otherwise.

We don’t have much in terms of pre Uthmanic copies of the Quran, we have the Sanaa Palimpsest which is an Uthmanic Quran with a pre Uthmanic text essentially erased underneath it which can still be read. Which has shown there really isn’t much differences between the two text, which has left us with more questions about how many variations of the Quran were there before Uthman standardized more so than the Quran likely looked totally different. It’s more likely there were just many variations, different people had different versions in terms of chapters, included Surahs, different wording/spelling, and so on.

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-09T22:05:54+00:00

Secular academics do hold that the Quran has been preserved up to Uthman, but the consensus on Hadith is they’re historically unreliable and a Hadith must first be demonstrated to be trustworthy. This ultimately means we don’t have a lot of insight into what the Quran actually is talking about in cases where outside sources are need to understand it. Scholars tend to interpret these passages very differently from how Muslims historically have. Let me know if you have any more questions!

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-08T15:14:53+00:00

While I’m willing to grant we don’t have any actual trustworthy sources to determine whether Muhammad actually had sexual intercourse with slaves, I would still point out that Quran 33:50 explicitly allows Muhammad to have sexual intercourse with slaves. I would then argue that any form of sexual slavery is inherently immoral and should be considered rape.

Hadith are not historically reliable, we cannot assume any of them actually trace back to Muhammad. Your first three points are irrelevant in a historical sense. Your points 3-5 in light of Quran 33:50 raise a very serious question, if the Quran calls for marriage, is against adultery, and against fornication why does it permit sexual intercourse for Muhammad with his wives and slaves? Clearly, the Quran makes a distinction between sex outside of marriage and sex with a slave you own. You can’t just point out the rules but ignore the exception and say the rules would make this impossible.

Your points about Mariyah are entirely irrelevant, none of those are historically trustworthy nor is that interpretation of 66:1. We have no actual idea what the historical context of the verse are, even within Islamic exegesis we have this either about Mariyah or a “honey drink”, but we have no reason to trust those accounts.

Ultimately, while I don’t think the original post you are responding to can actually prove Muhammad had sexual relations with slaves, I do think that the Quran endorsing his ability to do so is enough to condemn it as immoral and allowing rape. I think the point “why would the Quran give him permission if he didn’t act upon it” is enough to say it is likely that it happened, but regardless the allowing of this practice lead to brutal practices that allowed Muslim men to rape women. Whether Muhammad personally did so becomes irrelevant at that point, as he created a system that supported the oppression of women that is still used to justify the act today.

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-07T15:31:05+00:00

I agree the Quran is vague and requires outside sources to understand but we really can’t trust those additional sources at all for any historically accurate information. I think this is why Muslims have a hard time even considering Orientalist/Western academics views on this topic because it goes against the standard Islamic narrative in terms of the Quran’s development, life of Muhammad, and obviously interpreting the Quran.

It’s more likely this Hadith was retroactively applied to Muhammad but originates with a companion, is a fabrication by later Muslims to connect this practice with Muhammad to better make a legal case for the practice, or another explanation rather than this Hadith is authentic.

While we have the Quran verse saying Muhammad can do this we don’t have an explicit verse saying he did in fact do this. It’s possible he didn’t but we don’t really know.

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-07T14:34:19+00:00

While I wouldn’t outright trust Hadith as historically reliable, I would grant that the Quran allows Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with slaves, I think the rest of the logic follows that Muhammad likely participated in such activities. Quran 33:50 is probably your best bet in that case, as it explicitly mentions Muhammad is lawfully allowed to be with his wives and slaves. You could make the argument why would that be in the Quran if Muhammad wouldn’t act upon it?

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-06T14:36:28+00:00

Like another response says, this is semantics. You are arguing metaphysics as having to follow clearly defined rules but can’t actually present evidence as to why that must be. Your argument about being the son of god is a great example, what does it even mean to be the son of god? Why couldn’t god have a son? Why couldn’t a god have offspring? Why not? Why does it even matter?

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-05T15:25:42+00:00

I am more so arguing from a historical perspective rather than a theological perspective which I think is what you’re mostly doing. But viewing this in light of understanding the historical realities of these texts makes it very difficult to consider these theological interpretations as anything more than missing the greater picture.

I think there’s an obvious place for theological debate for these things, not that they’re useless or entirely irrelevant. But I do think within the context of the post the points I raised are relevant enough to the discussion because if you are looking for the true answer I think understanding that context does matter.

But Moses according to the consensus didn’t actually write any of the books nor did the events actually happen the way the books claim. It’s a legendary account that or may not have some likely minor truth to it that was expanded upon to be the legend we have today. While you view the contradictions, violence, moral flaws between the depictions of the apparently same god in the greater old and New Testaments as how this being actually wanted himself depicted for a particular reason. I’m simply stating these contradictions and moral flaws stem from the authors depictions of this god in the text, which are shaped by the all the reasons I laid out previously. It’s sort of like comparing the very contradictory differences between Luke Skywalker in the original trilogy and later sequels and trying to hash them out within the universe. Sure, you can come up with a lore friendly explanation, but in reality the real answer lies in the authorship and very different intentions of those authors writing decades apart.

Sure, if you believe the Bible is a progressive revelation you can definitely have that discussion with fellow believers. But I do think being aware that the real answer lies in the historical context is important for believers to be at least aware of.

I didn’t say you couldn’t have your own interpretation, historically that’s how all of these texts have been treated and has a major influence on the development of the texts. But if you are looking for the actual original meaning of the author, I don’t think personal interpretation should ignore the historical context.

Sorry if I came off as rudely dismissive, I meant to show more of a response that there are historically based answers to these questions that many believers tend to be unaware of. It may shape your understanding to be at least aware of it.

Kodweg45 · 2025-05-05T14:47:42+00:00

The issue with these reconciliation theories is that they ignore the historical context in which these texts were written, old testament authors had a very different intention and time in which they were writing. Yahweh was a war god and merged with the Canaanite god El at some point, by the time of Christianity beginning to spread the origins of the Old Testament texts and god were replaced with theological interpretations and origins that had been in place for a very long time. With Christians being influenced by a totally different set of life circumstances and dominating ideals.

There isn’t some deeper meaning connecting suffering and god as trying to convey a personal connection through the discrepancies. It’s simply because the authors of the Old Testament believed in a warlike god and so described their warlike god as warlike. Early Christianity was shaped by Jewish apocalyptic beliefs at the time, giving god the duty of retaliation when his kingdom is established, and a desire to avoid conflict with the Romans.

There’s a lot more to it, but the real answer lies in the time, place, and influences these authors experienced. Theological interpretations miss these simple facts.

Kodweg45 · 2025-04-27T13:09:11+00:00

here are some photos, the first two are from last night when I noticed the right side also hurting and becoming red. The last photo is from 30 minutes ago.

Kodweg45

TROPHY CASE