1 edit
-Removed-Dumb? I'm not trying to ask dumb questions but honestly trying to figure out your beliefs...
I've never quite seen anything like this so if you can answer that would be helpful as I'm trying to figure out with this issue where you think things are not real and when they do start being real in the timeline of Adam to Jesus.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I've never quite seen anything like this...
Dumb? I'm not trying to ask dumb questions but honestly trying to figure out your beliefs...
I've never quite seen anything like this so if you can answer that would be helpful as I'm trying to figure out with this issue where you think things are not real and when they do start being real in the timeline of Adam to Jesus.
I have.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GYTo6fDYraE/T3XLK5DV-6I/AAAAAAAAA70/M-Ndq11jB4o/s400/wolvsheep.jpg
Originally posted by galveston75You have had a ministry as a JW for how many years? Forty is it? Correct me if I am wrong. And also correct me if I am wrong if I assume you spent those decades going door to door [among other things], meeting hundreds and hundreds ~ maybe thousands and thousands ~ of Christians and non-Christians ~ and you have discussed Biblical topics with them, presented your perspectives and listened to, addressed, and challenged their perspectives. And you have been doing this for decades.
I've never quite seen anything like this so if you can answer that would be helpful as I'm trying to figure out with this issue where you think things are not real and when they do start being real in the timeline of Adam to Jesus.
And now here you are in 2014 saying that you have "never quite seen anything like" divegeester's view that the Bible account being discussed here is symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical? You seriously have not seen anything like this before?
It's hard to believe; even I have met countless Christians who have a similar view to divegeester about symbolism in this section of the Bible. I would imagine that hundreds of millions of Christians probably see it his way. How can you suggest that you have never seen it before?
In fact, come to think of it, haven't you encountered and engaged perspectives like his on this forum many times over the last 8 years or so?
When you say "I've never quite seen anything like this" is it just hyperbole or are you being genuine?
Originally posted by FMFWhy would I not be serious? Yes I've talked to many who believe that to be so but all have a different take on it and I'm just asking him to hear his version.
You have had a ministry as a JW for how many years? Forty is it? Correct me if I am wrong. And also correct me if I am wrong if I assume you spent those decades going door to door [among other things], meeting hundreds and hundreds ~ maybe thousands and thousands ~ of Christians and non-Christians ~ and you have discussed Biblical topics with them, presented you ...[text shortened]... ou say "I've never quite seen anything like this" is it just hyperbole or are you being genuine?
Originally posted by galveston75You said you'd never quite seen anything like divegeester's perspective before and if you now insist that you are being serious then it's difficult to see how anyone could take you at your word. I haven't spent the last 40 years talking to Christians on a daily basis, and yet even I have encountered countless Christians with perspectives like divegeester's before, but you're seriously saying you have not?
Why would I not be serious? Yes I've talked to many who believe that to be so but all have a different take on it and I'm just asking him to hear his version.
It occurs to me that the difference of opinion between divegeester and galveston may be more terminological than substantial. When divegeester says that the Book of Genesis is symbolic, galveston interprets this to mean “not real, did not really happen.” But symbolic and real are not mutually exclusive.
For example, I take it as historical fact that Jesus was crucified; it really happened. Lots of other people were crucified, too. The crucifixion of Jesus had a symbolic dimension which other crucifixions did not have. So, to say the the crucifixion of Jesus was symbolic is not to say that it was not real or that it did not happen. It is, on the contrary, to add a dimension of meaning to the event.
Analogously, an account could be given of the story in Genesis regarding Adam, Eve, and the Fall from Grace, which both salvages the symbolism of man’s awakening to his moral and spiritual nature (“in the image of God” ), and leaves enough of the putatively factual-historical details intact to be credible and acceptable to modern mainstream Christians.
I take it that being “the image of God” means that man has the capacity for moral judgment of good and evil. That is, man is the _spiritual_ image of God, not the physical image. Those who maintain that “the image of God” is to be understood physically, biologically, are making a crude, materialistic blunder; God does not have a pancreas.
Analogously, those who think that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) refers to some specific botanical variety (apples, pears, peaches, etc.) are making a crude, materialistic blunder which beggars credulity.
-Removed-Lol. Does it really matter what I said or how I said it. The answer is simply and not worth discusing as it's not the point here. The simply point is I've never seen your version...period.
The reason I'm asking this is because there is a clear pattern that comes from you and a couple others here many times over and over, and it seems to be starting now as usual and that is when there is a discussion going on of a specific subject and when it seems you either get bored, can't answer a question or a set of questions that I or another have asked you that you can't answer, you turn to an offensive mode. Or you simply play confused and deny that you have no idea what we are saying to you and you are innocent.
I watched a news cast last week on FOX News and the politician that was being interviewd on some issue being discussed got himself backed into a corner when he was asked a question. Instead of manning up and simply saying he didn't know, or that he had made a mistake, or that he was willing to learn more on the subject or take the punishment for his mistake.... he started to attack the reporter and tell them of the mistakes they had made on some story in the past and totally turned the story from his failings to some lame and forgotten issue that the report was involved in many years before.
Anyway the reporters doing the piece on FOX said he was just trying to get the focus of his mistakes off onto someone elses mistakes.
The had a term for it but forgot what it was.
Anyway the point is from my view and opinion this is where most of our discussions eventually end up. It seems you eventually divert the discussion at hand and after I or others show you a few scriptures, like the "tree bearing fruit" in the Garden of Eden did indeed bare fruit, which you said it didn't, you start changing the subject everytime to try and divert the subject now to a personal level against another to trivial issues like what I said or didn't say or how I said it. Who cares.... it's not what the thread is about is it?
I'm just curious if you'll ever be truly interesting to discuss issues with? I hope so it would be a good thing, I think.
Now can we discuss the subject of the Garden of Eden?
Originally posted by galveston75What you say is important in so far as it affects whether you can be taken at your word. You suggest that the Bible's Adam to Jesus lineage is corroborated by other accounts. Turns out this isn't true and you back pedal from it. You suggest that you have never heard of 'The Garden of Eden' story being seen as allegory before. Turns out this isn't true and you back pedal from it. What you say matters.
Does it really matter what I said or how I said it.
Originally posted by FMFI would bet galveston75 has not been going door to door in Indonesia.
You said you'd never quite seen anything like divegeester's perspective before and if you now insist that you are being serious then it's difficult to see how anyone could take you at your word. I haven't spent the last 40 years talking to Christians on a daily basis, and yet even I have encountered countless Christians with perspectives like divegeester's before, but you're seriously saying you have not?