by Schizm 137 Replies latest jw friends
Schizo:Get out of her face. It was a genuine mistake, and she immediately clarified the matter, hence showing that she wasn't attempting to break rule 7.
Kid-A:
Because I feel sorry for him. He's lonely, can't you tell? It's not completely his fault that he's emotionally immature and socially inept. After all, he was raised in a cult and never totally left Never-Never land.
She correctly writes:"they would die if they ate the fruit".Whilst that statement contains a logical sequence of events, it doesn't iterate all options. Another potential option is that "they would still die even if they didn't eat the fruit", if they failed to take advantage of eating the fruit on an adjacent tree known as the "Tree of Life".
Like I've already said: You fool!
.
Schizo:I'm not a mind-reader, at least not fulltime (thank gawd, coz I'd need mental-wellyboots if I tried trawling through your mind). You'll have to attempt to explain why my comment draws your ire, beyond the fact that it contradicts your assertion while supporting your premise.
Methinks you're totally aware that you're breaking rule 1. I'm glad you're so amusing with it. You really want the Mods to take action, don't you? Is it because you lack the self control to self-moderate?
I'd place you at about age 18 - 24, with a mental age of about 9. Have you been tested for mental acuity recently? This is a genuine question, as I really am concerned about the deprivation you appear to have experienced in life.
After all, he was raised in a cult and never totally left Never-Never land.
True enough, LT !! I forget this at times....LOL
LT
It suggests that you believe that an individual spirit somehow maintains the body's life. Also, that an individual spirit, on it's own runs low on power, or becomes tainted somehow. It would follow as well that a spirit who got his connection w god rehooked up would be maintaining his body free from death. But primarily, for adam, this isn't death for the individual spirit, but rather, a death of the body, although it took over 900 yrs for the his body to realise what had happened.
S
S:
Naww, my paradigm permits that the material receives it's primary source of energy from the material world and can wear away without recourse to the transcendental spirit. I think that Adam might have lived a little longer if he'd taken care of himself, or maybe not had to eat so many thorns and thistles
Besides, I think that Adam might well have re-hooked, given that he evidentally received some level of favour with the skins. Skins usually mean death and hence bloodshed, which was a pattern of sin atonement in most of the stories that make up the Old and New Testaments.
Of course I confess that's just one logical sequence of events that the Bible doesn't actually state, either. It uses several premises that may be every bit as wrong as Schizm's. That's the fun of theological diversity - we ultimately don't know...
My daddy told me once, do not ever continue to argue with a fool.If you do continue, it becomes difficult to determine who is and who is not, the fool.
Outoftheorg
I read the above on page 2 of this thread, and I think it aptly applies with regards to having any further discussion with you, LittleToe.
If I were to continue replying to the nonsense that you present then I myself would be a fool alongside you..
Schizo:
Ok, so I'm wrong...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..you're potentially mentally a year older, using a ten year old's tactic of saying back what someone else has said. Outoftheorg used that quotation against you, and now you're blindly reppeating it, probably without really knowing what it means. It's called "copycat"ing.
S:
I should also have added that I'm not ignoring the idea of the spiritual sustaining the physical. Given the youthful appearance of TaiChi practitioners, something appears to be working
Divisions -- You said a few pages back that the WT had several things wrong, that some things had "not dawned on them yet."
1st, I'd like to say, CONGRATULATIONS, your mind has been pried open a little by that Mack truck (apostates).
Next, I'm curious...what else do YOU think the WT has wrong ?
Remember, any deviation from WT teachings makes you an apostate, too.
A most curious Rabbit
Babbitt,
Divisions -- You said a few pages back that the WT had several things wrong, that some things had "not dawned on them yet."1st, I'd like to say, CONGRATULATIONS, your mind has been pried open a little by that Mack truck (apostates).
Seems that all you know how to do is babble, Babbitt. You may rest assured that there's not one single thing that the WTS is wrong about in which I learned of it from the "apostates". So, you shouldn't be taking credit when it's not due. All the things about which the WTS is wrong, and that I have knowledge of, I found out all by my lonesome. Now don't you wish that you could honestly say the same?
Next, I'm curious...what else do YOU think the WT has wrong ?
If you search through my posts you'll find the answer to your question.
.
