1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI haven't claimed anything with regard to personal beliefs, you are slobbering strawmen arguments, please stop drooling, i am embarrassed for you, sooooo transparent.
But you claiming that your personal beliefs are somehow are not your personal beliefs simply is not credible. If they're not your personal beliefs, then whose are they? Are they divegeester's? Are they mine? Are they moonbus' beliefs? No. They are yours, robbie. They are your beliefs.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell if you're posting over and over again on a topic on a Spirituality Forum where people's personal beliefs are more or less the only things that are shared and put forward, and you are unable or unwilling to "claim anything with regard to personal beliefs" then no wonder you so often end up having little more to say to people than the same sorts of things over and over and over and over again like they're "slimy", "slobbering" and "drooling" etc. etc. etc. etc.
I haven't claimed anything with regard to personal beliefs, you are slobbering strawmen arguments, please stop drooling, i am embarrassed for you, sooooo transparent.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere's that question still dangling in the air: "How can the tree of life have been destroyed in the flood when it is discussed in the book of revelation as being "for the healing of the nations"?"
...you are slobbering strawmen arguments, please stop drooling, i am embarrassed for you, sooooo transparent.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyawn, maybe someone somewhere in cyber space cares.
Well if you're posting over and over again on a topic on a Spirituality Forum where people's personal beliefs are more or less the only things that are shared and put forward, and you are unable or unwilling to "claim anything with regard to personal beliefs" then no wonder you so often end up having little more to say to people than the same sorts of things ove ...[text shortened]... er and over and over again like they're "slimy", "slobbering" and "drooling" etc. etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by FMFtwo points spring to mind,
Here's that question still dangling in the air: "How can the tree of life have been destroyed in the flood when it is discussed in the book of revelation as being "for the healing of the nations"?"
1. how do you know its a reference to the same tree?
2. the book of revelation states at the very beginning that its was presented in a vision, which is pretty damning for your argument when its understood that the trees in the garden of Eden were real trees.
Psssss, visions are not made of animate objects, yah think!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSeeing as you now admit you are unable or unwilling to "claim anything with regard to personal beliefs", I'm not sure what traction anything you say has. Whoever wrote Genesis was not a witness to any of the events from that supposed time in history so whether another book is up front about being based on a "vision" championed by people creating a new mythology for a new breakaway religion or it's an imagined allegorical account installed into Hebrew mythology is moot.
two points spring to mind,
1. how do you know its a reference to the same tree?
2. the book of revelation states at the very beginning that its was presented in a vision, which is pretty damning for your argument when its understood that the trees in the garden of Eden were real trees.
Psssss, visions are not made of animate objects, yah think!
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75"So what do you not agree with?"
You didn't answer my question....
I disagree with your assertions about the Genesis accounts being anything other than allegorical. And I disagree with the cherry picking approach that you propagate that relies on using inconsistent and unconventional meanings of words in a blatantly ideology-bolstering way, and I disagree with the claims you make about resulting religionist doctrine, and I disagree with your assertions that a God figure has revealed Himself to you ~ especially via fairy tales taken to be "literally true".
-Removed-Again, you are either not reading our post or you are ignoring them or you are just simply here to argue. Which is it?
Perhaps if you could progress from the infant "milk" knowledge of the bible to a more mature "meat" understanding, you might just figure it all out.
But you haven't and you have lots of gaps of just not knowing so many things.
It could change though just as it has for many but you must have humility towards God to have a chance of it happening.
Originally posted by FMFOk....you have that right. What about the bible do you believe in? Anything or nothing?
"So what do you not agree with?"
I disagree with your assertions about the Genesis accounts being anything other than allegorical. And I disagree with the cherry picking approach that you propagate that relies on using inconsistent and unconventional meanings of words in a blatantly ideology-bolstering way, and I disagree with the claims you make about resul ...[text shortened]... od figure has revealed Himself to you ~ especially via fairy tales taken to be "literally true".
It seems you do as you claim we do...cherry pic.
Originally posted by galveston75There are many religions around the world. I have no intention of cherry picking one unless I am convinced that they encapsulate God's revelation and instructions to humanity.
Ok....you have that right. What about the bible do you believe in? Anything or nothing?
It seems you do as you claim we do...cherry pic.
-Removed-I believe (could be wrong) it contained all of what soil contains now..... The elements and all maybe minus death or decay as most Christians and theologiens believe the curse came at the fall of man. From a scientific standpoint we really are glorified dirt clods with eyeballs these bodies we live in. We have many of the elements within our bodies and even trace radioactive elements. Probably hence the saying ashes to ashes and dust to dust
Manny
-Removed-Repeating a challenge after it's been answered is what it is, but aren't there other contradictions in this story you wish to explore? I might be persuaded to stay on this merry-go-round ride if something in the scenery changes.
So how about this... it says after they ate of the fruit their eyes were opened. Does this mean their eyes were literally shut until then? Up until then were they literally groping and feeling their way around in self imposed darkness? If so, then how could Eve see that the fruit was pleasant to the eyes and desirable for attaining knowledge? If they weren't already walking around with their eyes tightly shut then what could it mean for their eyes to have been opened? Isn't this as much (if not more) of a contradiction than simply a forewarned consequence not immediately following its cause?
But if you want to stick with the "day" problem that's okay. Maybe it means there would have been no consequence if they had partook of the forbidden fruit during the night. Maybe the warning means don't do that in the light of day, wait until nightfall.
Originally posted by lemon limeIt's sad that we have to reason like this with them on such a juvenile level but then even this doesn't seem to help them think and come to sensible conclusions.
Repeating a challenge after it's been answered is what it is, but aren't there other contradictions in this story you wish to explore? I might be persuaded to stay on this merry-go-round ride if something in the scenery changes.
So how about this... it says after they ate of the fruit their eyes were opened. Does this mean their eyes were liter ...[text shortened]... ring the night. Maybe the warning means don't do that in the light of day, wait until nightfall.
But they choose to remain in their ignorance of even the simplest of truths in the Bible. Satan has a powerful affect on ones who allow it to happen.