The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by FMF
galveston75's belief is that the supposed "actual" "Tree of Life" was destroyed in "the flood" but he has refused to substantiate it with "what is written in scripture". Is that why you have declined to endorse his claim?

no i simply refuse to get involved in what a I consider petty back biting.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is written in scripture and can be established objectively has nothing to do with me personally. what doesn't work it vain attempts to say that it has.

It's your personal view that the accounts are "actually true". Just as it is the personal view of those Christians who disagree with you that the accounts are allegorical. You should not be trying to distance yourself from the personal nature of your views and the opinions you have arrived at, no matter how you have done so.

Originally posted by FMF
It's your personal view that the accounts are "actually true". Just as it is the personal view of those Christians who disagree with you that the accounts are allegorical. You should not be trying to distance yourself from the personal nature of your views and the opinions you have arrived at, no matter how you have done so.

no its not, what I have actually said is that from a Christian perspective Jesus Christ taught a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, once again this is not dependent upon my personal beliefs, it can be Biblically and objectively established.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i simply refuse to get involved in what a I consider petty back biting.

galveston75's refusal to substantiate [with "what is written in scripture" as you yourself put it] his stated belief about what happened to the supposed "actual" "Tree of Life" is not "petty" at all if one bears in mind that it goes straight to the very heart of what you have been going on about on this thread and others in recent days. For you to claim that addressing galveston75's refusal to substantiate his claims with scripture is "petty" places a question mark over many of the things you have said to me, moonbus, Proper Knob, divegeester and others across several threads during the last week or so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not, what I have actually said is that from a Christian perspective Jesus Christ taught a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, once again this is not dependent upon my personal beliefs, it can be Biblically and objectively established.

There are other Christian perspectives and interpretations. The decision you have made as to which one to subscribe to is most certainly a "personal" one on your part.

Originally posted by FMF
There are other Christian perspectives and interpretations. The decision you have made as to which one to subscribe to is most certainly a "personal" one on your part.

on the contrary i have established it objectively and Biblically, it is nothing to do with any personal perspective nor what other people believe or profess. You are simply projecting another completely unsubstantiated and erroneous opinion.

Originally posted by FMF
galveston75's refusal to substantiate [with "what is written in scripture" as you yourself put it] his stated belief about what happened to the supposed "actual" "Tree of Life" is not "petty" at all if one bears in mind that it goes straight to the very heart of what you have been going on about on this thread and others in recent days. For you to claim that ad ...[text shortened]... moonbus, Proper Knob, divegeester and others across several threads during the last week or so.

uninterested. When the musics over turn out the lights. 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so where does it state that the tree of life was not literal? were the angels who guarded it also not literal? why would God post symbolic angels to prevent the way for a literal couple to gain access to the tree of life if it was merely symbolic? nothing you have said here makes any sense, its a like a hotch potch of gobbledygook all cobbled together.

How very sad it is for you that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge when you are wrong, but instead you just dial-up the intellectual dishonesty and chest-thumping bluster.

Tell me robbie, 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"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
uninterested. When the musics over turn out the lights. 😵

Your unwillingness to hold galveston75 to the standard you insist from others is very revealing. For a poster who trades so heavily on his self-perceived credibility, the decision is an an odd one on your part ~ although it doesn't come as much of a surprise.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary i have established it objectively and Biblically, it is nothing to do with any personal perspective nor what other people believe or profess. You are simply projecting another completely unsubstantiated and erroneous opinion.

Your personal opinions and beliefs and your personal opinions and beliefs, robbie. You cannot somehow distance yourself from them. They're still yours, no matter what you say.

Originally posted by divegeester
You said that you accepted at the tree was real because it was written "in scripture", but elsewhere in this thread you accept that the scripture contains "similes" and "metaphors". So I'm trying to pin you down on this:

Is everything in scripture literal or not?

No
Kelly

Originally posted by divegeester
How very sad it is for you that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge when you are wrong, but instead you just dial-up the intellectual dishonesty and chest-thumping bluster.

Tell me robbie, 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"?

Slobbery drool forum that a way--------->

Originally posted by FMF
Your personal opinions and beliefs and your personal opinions and beliefs, robbie. You cannot somehow distance yourself from them. They're still yours, no matter what you say.

You should try arguing a case objectively effhim. One does not need to distance oneself from anything for the argument rests upon its own merits or otherwise.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You should try arguing a case objectively effhim. One does not need to distance oneself from anything for the argument rests upon its own merits or otherwise.

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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Slobbery drool forum that a way--------->

So. There's something about the still unanswered question ~ "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"?" ~ which makes you immediately switch to your Clan Forum mode.