I'm a Theist

[Immanuel Can]

I WAS talking about the Tree of Know_Ledge of Good and Evil!!

You did not say so. Perhaps it would be better if you said what you meant.

[bahman]

You need to try it yourself to imagine nothing. It is possible.

Naw.

However, it's possible to imagine something, and then imagine it's nothing. Like you could imagine a black field, and pretend it's nothing. Or you could imagine a whiteness, and think you've "seen" nothing. But you've imagined a black field or a white screen, and those are not nothings.

It's not possible to imagine nothing. To imagine nothing is to have no imagining.

The black field is not nothing. Your last sentence also makes no sense to me because I can imagine nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

The black field is not nothing.

Right.

Your last sentence also makes no sense to me because I can imagine nothing.

I think you're probably wrong about that. But even if you weren't, you couldn't communicate your "nothing" vision to me or to anyone else, because there's nothing to communicate there.

[attofishpi]

I WAS talking about the Tree of Know_Ledge of Good and Evil!!

You did not say so. Perhaps it would be better if you said what you meant.

You really are cocky in removing large chunks of what people say, such that a huge amount of context is lost and renders in your favour.

Coward.

Just how many different types 'trees of knowledge(s)' are there in the bible. As far as I am aware there is only ONE referred to as a tree of KNOW_LEDGE.

[Immanuel Can]

You really are cocky in removing large chunks of what people say,...

You'll find I never "removed" a thing.

Look at the top of the message, and there's a little blue arrow, right next to the name cited...and I always cite the post I'm referring to. Click on that little blue arrow, and it takes you back to the entire message, just as you typed it.

Go ahead: it's right next to the name "attofishpi."

Are you back yet?

Wasn't that amazing? And not one of your words was missing. See? You were bellyaching about nothing.

Well, you learn something new every day, don't you?

[attofishpi]

You really are cocky in removing large chunks of what people say,...

You'll find I never "removed" a thing.

Look at the top of the message, and there's a little blue arrow, right next to the name cited...and I always cite the post I'm referring to. Click on that little blue arrow, and it takes you back to the entire message, just as you typed it.

Go ahead: it's right next to the name "attofishpi."

Are you back yet?

Wasn't that amazing? And not one of your words was missing. See? You were bellyaching about nothing.

Well, you learn something new every day, don't you?

See what I just did. I quoted you in the entirety - makes it a lot easier for those in the discourse as well as any interested readers to follow.

Did you learn something? Or are you going to continue being a coward?

[Immanuel Can]

See what I just did. I quoted you in the entirety - makes it a lot easier for those in the discourse as well as any interested readers to follow.

But what it means is that you get long strings of quoted messages. Your responses get longer, and longer, and longer, much of the space taken up by needless repetition of what is easily available through the little blue arrow.

You may do as you please, in that regard. But nothing is hidden from anyone here, so long as the little blue arrow exists. And citing the relevant portions of a message, rather than brainlessly repeating all the irrelevant parts as well, makes messages of readable, manageable length for most people.

Do it as a courtesy...or don't. But don't whine. Just click the arrow, and you're there.

[attofishpi]

See what I just did. I quoted you in the entirety - makes it a lot easier for those in the discourse as well as any interested readers to follow.

Do it as a courtesy...or don't. But don't whine. Just click the arrow, and you're there.

There is no courtesy in making it more difficult for viewers to follow the thread. I am not advocating ALWAYS quoting the entirety, indeed, as a matter of courtesy I tend to snip off things that are believe are not relevant to further discourse.

...below is something of some importance that you have omitted:-

I WAS talking about the Tree of Know_Ledge of Good and Evil!!

You did not say so. Perhaps it would be better if you said what you meant.

How many different types 'trees of knowledge(s)' are there in the bible. As far as I am aware there is only ONE referred to as a tree of KNOW_LEDGE.

So just HOW did you misunderstand me? Let''s face it...you are diversionary and not interested in keeping a debate on track and relevant.

[Immanuel Can]

How many different types 'trees of knowledge(s)' are there in the bible.

There are no "trees of knowledge" (full stop) in the Bible.

There is only a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and I have already supplied definitive proof from the text. To call it merely "the tree of knowledge" distorts the meaning of that text, because it implies that God is opposed to knowledge in general...which He clearly is not.

[attofishpi]

How many different types 'trees of knowledge(s)' are there in the bible.

There are no "trees of knowledge" (full stop) in the Bible.

There is only a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and I have already supplied definitive proof from the text. To call it merely "the tree of knowledge" distorts the meaning of that text, because it implies that God is opposed to knowledge in general...which He clearly is not.

So to you, the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil", CANNOT be considered a tree of knowledge?

[Immanuel Can]

So to you, the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil", CANNOT be considered a tree of knowledge?

I am. Because leaving off the essential qualifying phrase gives a distorted and untrue impression of what is being said.

And this is not trivial: the Atheists, for example, insist that the Genesis story is against science because (they say) it criticizes the having of knowledge. And Gnostics, for example, use Genesis to suggest that God is against humans having their alleged higher, esoteric knowledge. Of course, both are wrong: and we do no one any favours by joining them in their mistake.

[attofishpi]

So to you, the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil", CANNOT be considered a tree of knowledge?

I am. Because leaving off the essential qualifying phrase gives a distorted and untrue impression of what is being said.

Isn't ALL knowledge good? If you do not have knowledge of evil, then are you not restricting yourself, especially in the pursuit of wisdom?

Ergo, ultimately, is it not a test of faith that God has put forward?

[Age]

The black field is not nothing.

Right.

Your last sentence also makes no sense to me because I can imagine nothing.

I think you're probably wrong about that. But even if you weren't, you couldn't communicate your "nothing" vision to me or to anyone else, because there's nothing to communicate there.

What do you mean "there's nothing to communicate 'there' "?

Where is the 'there', which you say there is nothing to communicate ...?

Obviously, I could communicate my 'nothing' vision to you or any one else? Why you would assume and/or believe I could not do this?

[Age]

How many different types 'trees of knowledge(s)' are there in the bible.

There are no "trees of knowledge" (full stop) in the Bible.

There is only a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and I have already supplied definitive proof from the text. To call it merely "the tree of knowledge" distorts the meaning of that text, because it implies that God is opposed to knowledge in general...which He clearly is not.

But 'you', "immanuel can" distort the meaning of the texts by your very own "self".

[Age]

So to you, the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil", CANNOT be considered a tree of knowledge?

I am. Because leaving off the essential qualifying phrase gives a distorted and untrue impression of what is being said.

And this is not trivial: the Atheists, for example, insist that the Genesis story is against science because (they say) it criticizes the having of knowledge. And Gnostics, for example, use Genesis to suggest that God is against humans having their alleged higher, esoteric knowledge. Of course, both are wrong: and we do no one any favours by joining them in their mistake.

And obviously calling God a "he" IS WRONG, and we do no one any favors by joining you in your mistake.