Why was the forbidden tree in the garden?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian_Millar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gottle_of_Geer said:

There is no reason to see any reference to Him in the text. To do so, one must read this text in the light of much later ones - it can be given a Christological meaning, but it should not be. To do that amounts to reading Christ into the text. He lived near the close of the Second Temple period; this text is at least 500 years older. If it has to be taken Christologically, that amounts to saying that an essential element in the meaning was missing from the text for 500 years after it was stabilised. That does not make sense.​

Click to expand...
It only makes sense to people who believe that God authored this sacred myth and planted that meaning in there to be understood in the future. Some of us think that scripture has many such things in it.
 
fhansen said:
We were discussing epistemology and now suddenly I’m an unbeliever? Did I misunderstand you or have you actually read the posts? I defend the Church and her teachings and quote the CCC all over and speculate only on what is undefined and even then do so within the parameters the Church sets in a spirit of openness. Or who, exactly, are you addressing?
Click to expand...
Could you clarify something for me? In your previous comment to me you said you were not “Epistemologically Speaking” about our comments. Could you explain to me what you mean when you say “Epistemologically Speaking”. I am not sure I understand what you mean.

God Bless
Thomas…
 
samoht said:
Brian, I wonder if you really mean what you say in your comment to Agnosttheist. I will not presume to know what you mean I just ask if you have thought about it in relation to this person who is a flesh and blood human being as you and I. We all have our burdens to carry and Agnost has his as well as you and I. As a kind and Godly man will you not see that this person is hurting and has many questions that so far others have not answered for him? I have known people like Agnost and their hurt is profound. They need the charity that our Lord instilled in us to impart to others. Would he not be voicing, in anger to be sure, a hurt that needs to be understood rather than chastized?

Think for a moment. Maybe Agnost is the most honest person in these forums for he says what he really feels. If you were a priest or counselor would you be so harsh with him? I do not think I could be and you probably would not be either.

As a not to all who reads this let us all be more charitable in our thoughts about one another. Agnost has not said he is a murderer, rapist, robber or child abuser. He is just a man like all of us with a heavy burden to carry and is hopeful of some understanding as we all are. There is goodness in all men if we will just try to see it. Let us all think about it.
Click to expand...
He’s being treated in a manner he opts to treat others here, so no, I’m not going to hold back on this one. I’ve seen their types before, hateful, bitter, resentful towards those that have genuine faith and they cannot stand the fact that people have a genuine love for God, the church, and his words.

Would you show restraint if someone walks into your house, tortures your family and another tells you it’s ok, they are misguided, you are to allow them to continue to do the same to other households? Come on, this is not what this place is about, the guy obviously has a chip on his shoulder and someone has to knock it off, nobody is doing it so I volunteered. Being gentle about it is not getting through to him, so additional measures must be taken, the stance I take is one that is meant to get through to him and make him face reality outside of his closed minded, limited world, God does not fit into his box, he is not one any of us should listen to, and I find his stance offensive, as all should find it the same way.

The guy is not hurting, he’s puffed up with pride, so much so, it has blinded him to the truth…
 
samoht said:
Could you clarify something for me? In your previous comment to me you said you were not “Epistemologically Speaking” about our comments. Could you explain to me what you mean when you say “Epistemologically Speaking”. I am not sure I understand what you mean.

God Bless
Thomas…
Click to expand...
Thomas
I coined a term which probably didn’t convey its intended meaning very well but in any case wasn’t the essential part of my response and meant nothing deeper then that, whether or not I had applied rules of epistemology-or verified my facts-with the rigor I believe or think or assume or presume you desired, I still would not have replied other then how I did-or that I even needed to be more rigorous for the purpose which was at hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top