by BluesBrother 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
Ask her this:
I have a baby. The baby is young. I have knowlege of good and bad. I want to:
A. Keep it from the baby and keep the baby dependent on me forever
B. Share it with the baby, and have faith that my child will grow into a just, loving being like myself.Afterall, I created the baby in my image.
But she didn't answer my question
Some interesting comments and links on a similar thread:
JWs and that damn stove!
I once shook the faith of a nice old lady by using that stupid stove. She was so confused, she was shaking. She literally asked me, "Well, what am I supposed to believe in now?"
I should've just left her alone to die in peace with her assurance of faith in her Lord, instead of going to her house, knocking on her door, and creating chaos.
But then again, if she would've told me she wasn't interested, I would have just told her to have a nice day and left:)
I don't believe in evangelizing anymore.
but then he has no right to put any limits whatsoever on his creation?
But why does he need to if he has created them in his image? He is the one who declared that his creation was good.
Ask her this:I have a baby. The baby is young. I have knowlege of good and bad. I want to:
A. Keep it from the baby and keep the baby dependent on me forever
B. Share it with the baby, and have faith that my child will grow into a just, loving being like myself.Afterall, I created the baby in my image.
cicatrix...you forgot the end to the story....the child touches the stove....you kill her/him. Now THAT'S a lesson!!!!
Which tree of life?
The link that LT supplied had the following image:
Now the thing about this image is that it supposed to be an "old book". I think it looks more like someone's old butt! How about you?
.
To no one :
I would like to say that I really admire your reasoning ability, at least to a certain degree.
I particularly appreciated the following comments made by you:
Please, if you would, take these questions back to the JW you remain in contact with:This tree evidently had no intrinsic life-giving qualities in its fruit, -- JW.If this statement is so, then why did God make this statement:
"Now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,-Also, please notice that the Genesis account says that the cherubs and flaming sword guard the way to the 'tree'. Why guard a tree that is purely symbolic and has 'no intrinsic life-giving qualities'.
And if God's word is true and the sentence for eating from the 'tree of knowledge' is death, why bother with the cherubs and sword to guard the tree. Jeez. Let him eat. What good will it do? Who's to say he hadn't already eaten from it. He had permission and both trees were in the 'middle of the garden'.
undoubtedly Adam would have been permitted to eat this fruit after proving faithful to a point that God considered satisfactory and sufficient. -- JW.To this comment, Gen 2:16: "From EVERY tree of the garden you may eat..." and then it forbids the eating of the 'tree of knowledge' only. So-- Adam had permission to eat from the 'tree of life' initially. Who's to say he hadn't already eaten from it. Both trees were in the 'middle of the garden'.
Yes, the parts of your argument above is irrefutable, I think.
I personally believe that Adam and Eve partook of the tree of life on a regular basis before they were banned from the Garden. The fruit of this tree apparently had what was needed in order for them to never grow "old" and die (a true fountain of youth). No longer being allowed to eat of its fruit after having shown a disrespect for their Creator's law would cause them to eventually die, due to being starved of the unique ingredients that could be found in that tree alone.
.
(a) "The Bible does not say that the tree of life in itself had life-giving qualities. (b) Rather, that tree simply represented God's guarantee of everlasting life to the one who would be allowed to eat its fruit ." -- w99 4/15 pp. 7-8.
(a)
True , the Bible doesn't directly say the tree of life had life-giving qualities--but if we only use our noggins we can discern that this tree did indeed have such qualities.
(b) Oh yeah? And who says so? Certainly not the Bible!
.
Schizm,
I have trouble with the tree itself possessing a life-giving nutrient since that would take the power of life out of God's hands. It begs the question of who/what can grant everlasting life.
Let's take it a bit further. What keeps the angels alive? Those that have sinned do not die. At least, if we are to believe the Bible account, they have yet to die, but are only exiled to the Earth. And this after 6000 years of dying humanity. Sin, by the Bible account, originated with the spirit realm with spirit creatures. What is keeping them alive? If anything needs to die, I would think the perpetrators of sin should go 1st. Instead, not one account of a dying angel. It would seem that in the case of angels, 'the wages of sin does not bring death'.
