Here is a interesting thought

[Drich]

Remember that I don't really have a horse in this race. I think we can get away with Mohammed not being the son of God - it is within the limits of a parable. If you want to see that further demonstrated remember that for either of the sons to inherit the father must die.

Actually according to what the parable says the Father lives and the second son wants to cash out and be seperated from Him, so the son declares that Father 'dead to him.' So the Father gave him what he was due and let him leave.

Obviously most interpretations make God the father - you are not suggesting he died and Jesus took over are you?

No, I am suggesting per the parable itself no one died.

Mohammed offers an alternative pathway from Jesus - that is why it denies the Christian route just as Christianity claims itself to be the only way. For followers of either they are right. This is not unlike the first commandment - You shall have no other God but/before me. Note that this is not saying there are no other Gods - merely that if you are going to follow this book then as far as you are concerned you have only one God.

If Mo-Ham offered anything (Like a 3rd covenant) the offer would have to had come from God Himself (as per Jesus and Moses.) But it does not. It (The covenant) supposesedly comes from the angel Gaberial.

PS - assuming no to the did God die bit - does Jesus do the judging? I thought God did it. Jesus seems to take the role of the advocate for Christians more than judge to me.

2Tim 4, 1 peter 4, and Hebrews 4 all point to Christ judging the word. Christ Himself also says: "No man comes through to the Father, but by me."
This doesn't mean no one goes to the father but through Christianity, It litterally means Christ will stand before you and decide (judge) whether or not you will enter into the Father's rest.

---

First, Evolution does not say humans evolved from "monkeys".

That is the beautiful thing about that theory. Evolution can say what ever it wants to say, and it will still fit with in the confines of a literal biblical creation account.
I said 'monkies' just to prove that point.

Creationists who say that are dumbing the theory of evolution down to one simplistic sentence to make it sound stupid. The theory of evolution says humans and African apes share a common ancestor, which is an inarguable, proven fact. I have explained this many times on the forum: Evolution disproves the creation story of Genesis.

Actually it does not. The Genesis account only give a 'creation pov' from the perspective of the Eden Nothing outside the Garden is meantioned to any great detail. Again my theory say evolution could have taken any course as currently understand it, and that does not change what happened in the garden. For nothing in the evolution account of orgins can account for what happened in Eden.

Paleontologists and scientists dug up fossils dating back to millions of years, analyzed them and assembled them into family trees based on their similar biological traits. The youngest fossils were buried higher up in the earth, and the older fossils were buried deeper down in the earth.

So?
Maybe you should read (not skim) what I wrote in my creation/evolution thread again. There is no legitimate 'evolution' arguement that can not be assimliated by the creation account.

Vegetation was also created by humans during the Agricultural Revolution (not by God), which continues to this day.

Humans do not create they produce.

God Created Adam. Meaning He took essentially nothing and made Man.
From Adam God Produced Eve. Meaning He took apart of something that was existing and made something like the orginal. (This is what man does)

Then Adam and Eve Reproduced Cain, Able, Seth and all of their other sibblings. In essence we copied what God had Created.

Man can not truly create anything. We produce from elements of creation and we reproduce or copy.