17 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI don't think anyone has challenged whether the "garden" was real or symbolic. My question to you is in my previous post if you care to challenge the scriptures I've already presented in this thread to support my viewpoint.
Has anyone here ever wondered why the Garden of Eden was called a garden?
I know what the word 'garden' means to me. If I have a little plot of land (dirt) outside my back door I could allow it to be barren or grow wild, or fix it up for agriculture... or I could make it into a garden.
What is the purpose of a garden, and is the garden outside my back door symbolic or real?
17 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterOkay, so if you're not really challenging whether the "garden" was real or symbolic (it appeared to me you were) then I'm not sure what your viewpoint is.
I don't think anyone has challenged whether the "garden" was real or symbolic. My question to you is in my previous post if you care to challenge the scriptures I've already presented in this thread to support my viewpoint.
If you think the God who was able to bring everything into existence wasn't able or willing to make a garden to place a man into after creating him, or you think God just sits back and does nothing, or you believe there is no God, or that he isn't able to create a real garden that is also symbolic and instructive, or etc etc etc.
In other words, without knowing what you actually believe I have no idea what your point of contention is or could be. So what exactly are you trying to say? Get to the point... if there is one.
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by SuzianneHe's a wolf in sheeps clothing... the only one he's fooling is himself if he thinks we can't see that.
I'm not your spiritual advisor.
Your only goal in asking me this is to ridicule me if you do not agree with me, as has been shown here with others already.
The atheists also feel comfortable in joining in with your ridicule, so I'll pass, thanks.
I can almost hear Satan laughing in the background and saying "You will know the tooth, and the tooth will set you free. First I'll start with the soft fleshy parts and gnaw on the bones later. And the only thing I like better than chewing on sheep is dining on wolves... mm mm good!"
17 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limePerhaps if you took 10 minutes to read through this thread you would know exactly what my point is. In fact I answered your question a few posts back and asked you to do the same, but you seem to think that repeatedly asking me what my viewpoint is, is some sort of contribution to this debate.
Okay, so if you're not really challenging whether the "garden" was real or symbolic (it appeared to me you were) then I'm not sure what your viewpoint is.
If you think the God who was able to bring everything into existence wasn't able or willing to make a garden to place a man into after creating him, or you think God just sits back and ...[text shortened]... or could be. So what exactly [b]are you trying to say? Get to the point... if there is one.[/b]
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI'm a wolf because I disagree with you? 🙄
He's a wolf in sheeps clothing... the only one he's fooling is himself if he thinks we can't see that.
I can almost hear Satan laughing in the background and saying "You will know the tooth, and the tooth will set you free. First I'll start with the soft fleshy parts and gnaw on the bones later. And the only thing I like better than chewing on sheep is dining on wolves... mm mm good!"
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeYou realise you sound a little strange, don't you?
I can almost hear Satan laughing in the background and saying "You will know the tooth, and the tooth will set you free. First I'll start with the soft fleshy parts and gnaw on the bones later. And the only thing I like better than chewing on sheep is dining on wolves... mm mm good!"
17 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterI got the gist of it. You were comparing death entering the world for man with the death of microbes. Maybe those microbes sinned before man showed up. Would that satisfy your need to understand why microbes die? Your skin is made up of living cells that die and flake off... is it because your skin has sinned and must die, or is there some other explanation for this? So many things to ponder and so little time... oh my.
Perhaps if you took 10 minutes to read through this thread you would know exactly what my point is. In fact I answered your question a few posts back and asked you to do the same, but you seem to think that repeatedly asking me what my viewpoint is, is some sort of contribution to this debate.
But seriously, living things can start growing in cracks on hardened lava flows or in forests that have burned to a crisp... how is that possible if we need dead microbes to first nurture that soil?
17 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterPretending to not know what "wolf in sheeps clothing" means in a Biblical context proves my point, because I'm a wolf because I disagree with you? is what I would expect to hear from a wolf in sheeps clothing. 😕😛
I'm a wolf because I disagree with you? 🙄
18 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterThere was also this:
Perhaps if you took 10 minutes to read through this thread you would know exactly what my point is. In fact I answered your question a few posts back and asked you to do the same, but you seem to think that repeatedly asking me what my viewpoint is, is some sort of contribution to this debate.
galveston75: Still there are no accounts being presented that disclaim what the bible says. Why not?
divegeester: I think the tens of thousands of authors of books on cosmology, geology, palaeontology, anthropology will will have something to say about that. Not to mention peer reviewed papers, posters and journals.
That post and your comments on death and microbes does tell me (if not exactly then close enough) what your point is. So what's next? Are you leading up to a discussion of Darwinian creationism and (in your opinion) the role God did not play in creation?
Originally posted by lemon limeI don't think anyone seriously questions divegeester's Christian faith and belief in its God figure. It seems to me that one of the questions that may be underpinning this discussion is ~ '...does insisting that allegories in scripture are "literally true" serve to obscure or misinterpret the role that God did play in creation and how it was actually brought about?'
That post and your comments on death and microbes does tell me (if not exactly then close enough) what your point is. So what's next? Are you leading up to a discussion of Darwinian creationism and (in your opinion) the role God did not play in creation?
The insinuations about the role of "Satan" in a believer calling an allegory an allegory or calling a bit of poetry a bit of poetry come across as attempts at holier-than-thou body-slamming. I mean, suggesting that "Satan" is behind disagreement or dissent is the most sneering blow a Christian can attempt to land on a fellow Christian's chin, right?
18 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeI answered you question on the previous pages 5 five posts up from the bottom and asked you this in return:
There was also this:
galveston75: Still there are no accounts being presented that disclaim what the bible says. Why not?
divegeester: I think the tens of thousands of authors of books on cosmology, geology, palaeontology, anthropology will will have something to say about that. Not to mention peer reviewed papers, posters and journals.
That po ...[text shortened]... ion of Darwinian creationism and (in your opinion) the role God did not play in creation?
"I'm not contesting the symbolic significance, I'm contesting that these were real trees. If you feel you can demonstrate in scripture how the tree of life is a real tree with 12 real different life giving fruits and healing leaves, which is on both sides of a river...then please feel free to do so."
Which is completely on topic and theme and which you have completely ignored; choosing instead to suggest I don't understand what "a wolf in sheeps clothing" means (which you called me because I disagree with you - I think).
Why don't you respond to my question which I've reposted here (to make it easy for you) instead of throwing out "wolf" insults.
18 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterWhy don't you respond to my question which I've reposted here...
I answered you question on the previous pages 5 five posts up from the bottom and asked you this in return:
[i]"I'm not contesting the symbolic significance, I'm contesting that these were real trees. If you feel you can demonstrate in scripture how the tree of life is a real tree with 12 real different life giving fruits and healing leaves, which is ...[text shortened]... stion which I've reposted here (to make it easy for you) instead of throwing out "wolf" insults.
What question? Reposted where?
If you're talking about challenging me to demonstrate the trees are real trees then how is that a question? I'll assume that's what you are talking about and counter your challenge by challenging you to demonstrate the tress are not real trees. Go to the Garden of Eden and bring back evidence of symbolic trees.
18 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFhttp://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/thumbs/2013/08/07/033300/83464392/macaque-thumb.jpg
I don't think anyone seriously questions divegeester's Christian faith and belief in its God figure. It seems to me that one of the questions that may be underpinning this discussion is ~ '...does insisting that allegories in scripture are "literally true" serve to obscure or misinterpret the role that God did play in creation and how it was actually brought abo ...[text shortened]... t is the most sneering blow a Christian can attempt to land on a fellow Christian's chin, right?