by gumby 297 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Tammy,
LMAO!
Another clown woman onboard. It's getting outta hand!
Schizm,
It's alright if you don't participate.......which is why as I stated in my post earlier that anyone could answer if you didn't wish to participate. I thought I made that clear?
Gumby
Gumby,
It's alright if you don't participate.......which is why as I stated in my post earlier that anyone could answer if you didn't wish to participate. I thought I made that clear?
Yes, Gumby, you did in fact make it clear.
You had said:
Well, if schizm does't wish to partricipate any further.....perhaps another may wish to answer these questions.
Problem is, I'm the one that knows the answer to each and every one of Farkel's questions, and I'm not talking. Why? Because he killed this thread, insofar as me having any input into it any longer. I had fully intended to address every supposed problem that he had posed, until he proved to be so ridiculous about the word "reply".
Schizm
Gumby, I want you to note the hilariously stereotypical response of someone who knows he's beaten:
: I had fully intended to address every supposed problem that he had posed
But . . . . .
Do you know how many times I've seen this very statement from JW defenders?
What is it about the Fundie mindset that produces such stereotypical responses?
AlanF
Here's that post of mine which AlanF found he couldn't deal with:
Hi AlanF,
: Also, since we have to eat in order to stay alive then it seems that *food* is the key to continual life.Not at all. We breath air and we drink water in order to stay alive, but you're not proposing that *air* and *water* are keys to continual life. You're not arguing logically. Lack of any of these will kill us, but it doesn't follow that a sufficient supply or a supply of "the right kind" will allow us to live forever.
It is true that we also need air and water in order to stay alive. However, the "key" to continuous life without ever dying is Biblically linked to *food*. Nothing was said about any "air of life" or "water of life" there in the Genesis account. It was a "tree of life" which Adam was no longer allowed to EAT from, and which finally led to his death.
:All that we're told is that Adam and Eve themselves were allowed to do so.--SchizmNo, Genesis doesn't say that. You're jumping to a conclusion.--AlanF
According to Genesis 2:16, 17 Adam had permission to eat from "every" tree of the garden, except for ONE particular tree. So, how can you say that Genesis doesn't say that Adam had permission to eat from the tree of life?
From what's been said so far I see no reason to ditch my original statements. Which were in two parts, as follows:
[1] I believe that the "tree of life" contained the unique ingredients that Adam & Eve needed in order to sustain their lives forever. I also believe that they were at least periodically eating from this tree, for the reason that the other tree was the only one of the two that was off-grounds for them. It was only AFTER they disobeyed that they were prevented from eating of the tree of life any longer. Had they not disobeyed it appears that they would have continued to live for as long as they replenished the needs of their bodies by consuming the essential ingredients that could be found in the tree of life alone.No question about it, they had permission to eat of the tree of life.
The fruit from the tree of life really had life-sustaining ingredients.
The fruit from the "other" tree was simply good for food, just plain ole food, and to eat from it was to disobey God and merit not being worthy of eating of the tree of life any longer.
So Adam and Eve would still be alive today had they not been disallowed from eating from the tree of life.
We die for the same reason that Adam and Eve died ... because we need the ingredients from the tree of life and aren't getting them.
[2] We die for the same reasons that Adam and Eve died. Namely, because we need the ingredients found in the tree of life, and can't have them. The reason we can't have them is because we fail to be fully righteous. We fail to be fully righteous because our fathers were unable to inculcate this quality into us by way of teaching us properly. Our fathers were unable to teach us properly because their fathers were just as incapable ... and so on all the way back to Adam. Ultimately it can all be blamed on "sin". Person's who "sin" aren't worthy of eating from the tree of life. Once we've been helped to overcome our sinfulness then we will be allowed to eat from the tree of life. That's apparently the reason for the mention of the "trees of life" in the book of Revelation. It has nothing at all to do with genes!I look forward to any further comments that you may make.
Thanks,
Schizm
I asked AlanF why he didn't reply to my comments, and this is what he said:
: Also, I had hoped that you would've made it back in order to offer a reply to my last post, addressed to you, but you never replied.I chose not to because you simply danced around my points, and I don't much feel like dancing with people about this topic. Really, since I believe it's like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I'll take the time only as long as I have nothing more pressing to do. It's only of minor academic interest.
For any of you who might not recognize it, this tactic, as used by AlanF, is as old as the hills. The idea is to make it appear that the other person is the one who is side-stepping the issue when in fact it's ole AlanF himself that's doing all the side-stepping. And please note the part above which I've put in extra-large red font. Of course you'll never catch AlanF having the humility to acknowledge that he had been proven wrong there. Why that might hurt his widdle image.
Schizm
We die for the same reasons that Adam and Eve died. Namely, because we need the ingredients found in the tree of life, and can't have them. The reason we can't have them is because we fail to be fully righteous. We fail to be fully righteous because our fathers were unable to inculcate this quality into us by way of teaching us properly. Our fathers were unable to teach us properly because their fathers were just as incapable ... and so on all the way back to Adam. Ultimately it can all be blamed on "sin". Person's who "sin" aren't worthy of eating from the tree of life. Once we've been helped to overcome our sinfulness then we will be allowed to eat from the tree of life
So Shcizm, your saying by the proper teaching, a person can be rightous enough so he can eat of the tree of life? Correct?
And your saying the reason man cannot have this proper teaching is because nobody knows how to teach this truth. Correct?
So basically you are saying if there was someone smart enough, who could teach well enough, they could teach someone to be rightous enough so that god would permit that person to eat from the tree of life? Correct?
Now am I on track?
If I am following you, then you are saying this,
When christ came to the earth, he wasn't good enough to teach truth to others to the point of making them rightous enough so they could eat from a tree of life...correct?
When the bible and christ himself, teaches that sin is removed and life is given by his shed blood, this really isn't true according to you because it's the fruit we REALLY need for life. Correct?
Also, the bible which you take your information from, tells us that god forordained Jesus role, from the founding of the world. This means God had plans to sacrafice his son to absolve mans sins from the beggining, rather than have him eat from a tree to gain life......correct?
How would you explain all these things Schizm?
Gumby
Gumby:
Help my memory out here, a moment.
The JW teaching on the "founding of the world" comment is that this was the founding of the sinful world, right?
It still doesn't help them get around the fact that there are several references to "before the founding of the world".
The joys of having to make scripture fit a theory
Hi Gumby,
Before I deal with the fresh questions that you've asked, I'd like to know why it is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that AlanF had no comeback to what I'd said to him.
This is the part that I'm talking about:
:All that we're told is that Adam and Eve themselves were allowed to do so.--SchizmNo, Genesis doesn't say that. You're jumping to a conclusion.--AlanF
According to Genesis 2:16, 17 Adam had permission to eat from "every" tree of the garden, except for ONE particular tree. So, how can you say that Genesis doesn't say that Adam had permission to eat from the tree of life?
Obviously, AlanF himself is NOT going to acknowledge that he made a false claim. Don't you think that you're exhibiting a bit of bias by your not calling attention to to HIS error. I believe that if it had been me instead that you and several others wouldn't have let it slip by unmentioned.
You do realize, don't you, that you have the right to ALSO call attention to Alan's failure to address things that are placed before him?
Why are you biased against me, Gumby? It wasn't me who cut into your groin! And even if it was, you were sewn up, were you not? *LOL* Are the stitches too tight? *LOL* Just kidding of course about your being operated on, but not about the fact that you seem to be biased.
Schizm
What 'exactly' changed in Adam when he sinned?
He understood it is all about being in jail anyway (somehow)
Ok that was Corinne in the mood for kidding
Schizm,
I'm not a policeman betwwen you and Alan just because I started this thread. If he doesn't answer a question of yours, it's not up to me to see that he does or comment about it. We'll find out one way or the other. Perhaps Alans point was that the scriptures does not say specifically the"time period" they were allowed to eat from it. Becuse god gave them permission to eat from EVERY tree....doesn't mean they had ALREADY begun eating from the Tree of Life. Anyway this part is your and Alans buisness.
LT, you are correct in how the dubs view the "founding of the world". Their explanation of "the world" began with the creation of Adam. So the "world" in this instance, was man. They feel god set up the ransom idea AFTER Adams rebellion, but bible hermanetics of these accounts begs to differ. One cannot follow the scriptures in this matter without running into the problem of predestination......and that's another subject in itself.
Gumby
Schizm, now you've taken to lying -- yet another diagnostic Christian behavior. It's sad that you and your fellow Christian liars cause credibility problems for honest Christians like LittleToe.
I told you that I chose not to reply to your moronic comments because you're incapable of logical, rational thought. I certainly didn't say or imply that I could not -- which is the basis of your lie.
This lying is precisely why I often choose not to respond to Christians, especially when their responses repeatedly demonstrate an inability to reason. I choose not to deal with pathological liars, and I often choose not to deal with unreasonable persons unless it suits my purpose to demonstrate something.
AlanF
