• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Looking For A Smart Atheist

Earthling

David Henson
Sorry to butt in, but just thought I'd give my response if it's at all helpful.

Sure. Everyone is welcome. It's a public forum.

If we are taking the Bible at its literal word, then we must also conclude that God gave things for humans to eat that are actually also harmful, poisonous or outright deadly for us to eat.

Why would we have to conclude that?

In which case, an additional question arises as to whether or not God gave explicit permission to eat such things with the express intention that we would/should be harmed or poisoned, or whether, in providing things that we have permission to eat, God anticipated the human ability to differentiate between what we could eat and what we should eat. In the former case, I would argue that consumption of any such plant above would, at the very least, be justified; in the latter case, I couldn't possibly say.

I'm not seeing the sense in that.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Interesting.



Ok, tell me what you think about Genesis 3:17-18 and Isaiah 34:13.

Adam+and+Eve+as+allegory.jpg
 

Earthling

David Henson
If God provided all the world's plants to eat, including those that you listed (some of which do have poisonous properties), and we include them in that list, then we must also include poisonous ones.

Tricky. I don't want to give it away too soon, so What do you think about these verses that I just posted, probably as you were making this post. Genesis 3:17-18 and Isaiah 34:13

Could you be more specific? What doesn't make sense?

First, I didn't see your work. No basis for your conclusion that God gave things for humans to eat that are harmful, and as for the additional question it just didn't make any sense to me. I don't think that your explaining or elaborating would help because I don't think you are headed in the right direction.

Tell me what you think when we conclude this.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
If God provided all the world's plants to eat, including those that you listed (some of which do have poisonous properties), and we include them in that list, then we must also include poisonous ones.


Could you be more specific? What doesn't make sense?

Neolithic Diets | Our Everyday Life

Neolithic Diets

The Natufians became dependent on wheat and barley, so when environmental conditions declined, some began the process of domesticating crops. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period from 8,300 to 7,500 B.C., the ancients planted crops of wheat and barley and adopted other vegetation, including chickpeas


snip

Around 9,000 B.C., the climate in the Middle East, where the Neolithic culture was centered, transitioned from cold and dry to an agriculture-friendly warm, humid and mild.

As a result, a new abundance of wild cereals, including wheat and barley, nut trees and wild game became available to the pre-Neolithic hunter-gathers referred to by archaeologists as Natufians.

The Natufians began to set up permanent camps as produce became readily available and with good reason. Barley, for instance, is a complex carbohydrate that offers essential nutrients, including folate, fiber and potassium.

A nut available to the Natufians -- pistachios -- is a rich source of heart-healthy mono- and polyunsaturated fats and vitamin A. Let your meals be inspired by the Natufians: Enjoy a hot bowl of cream of wheat for breakfast, a salad with pistachios for lunch and beef and barley stew for dinner.

continued

Neolithic Diets
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Uh-huh. They say hindsight is 20/20 but I don't find that necessarily so.

Well, archaeologist have found some stone granaries that are 11,000 years old. One of these ancient granaries is in Jordan.... and they know the Natufians were in Jericho as well most likely because of the spring there.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It has been my experience that the many atheists I personally know they are no more open minded than anyone else. That would include myself when I was an atheist and afterwards.

When you're face to face with people you know, depending upon how close you might be, whether relatives, close friends or merely acquaintances, people tend to appear more open minded than they might on an anonymous forum.

I'm likely much more open-minded than I thought, then, since I'm INCREDIBLY open-minded here, for example, giving atheists numerous chances to rethink their untenable positions. Of course, I'm also modest. :)
 

Earthling

David Henson
Well, archaeologist have found some stone granaries that are 11,000 years old. One of these ancient granaries is in Jordan.... and they know the Natufians were in Jericho as well most likely because of the spring there.

How do they determine 11,000 years? And did you ever answer my question of why you're a Christian? You don't believe in the supernatural, so that rules out a creator god. You don't believe the Bible is real, so why bother calling yourself Christian? I just find it curious.

To me it would be like making a religion of Aesop's fables.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
How do they determine 11,000 years? And did you ever answer my question of why you're a Christian? You don't believe in the supernatural, so that rules out a creator god. You don't believe the Bible is real, so why bother calling yourself Christian? I just find it curious.

To me it would be like making a religion of Aesop's fables.

Oh the Bible is real.. Its basically a teaching narrative about the history and origins of the Jews. Aesop's Fables is also real.

Archaeologist use a number of methods to date something .. Let me see if I can find an article that explains the process.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
First, I didn't see your work. No basis for your conclusion that God gave things for humans to eat that are harmful, and as for the additional question it just didn't make any sense to me.
You said that God gave humans "every plant for food" and assumed that there were "no exceptions", so this - as well as including the plants you listed which can and do have poisonous properties - must necessarily mean he gave us poisonous plants to eat, too. If you want to change the terms and indicate that God didn't gives us all plants to eat, but only some of them, you'd have to find some way to distinguish between the ones intended to be eaten or not intended to be eaten, in which case you'd be answering your own query.

I don't think that your explaining or elaborating would help because I don't think you are headed in the right direction.

Tell me what you think when we conclude this.
Not much, just that the Bible is a little vague in this area and that, even if we determine a very specific interpretation, we can still draw multiple conclusions as to God's possible intentions.

Maybe I'll have a look at the other verses soon.
 

sooda

Veteran Member

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Tricky. I don't want to give it away too soon, so What do you think about these verses that I just posted, probably as you were making this post. Genesis 3:17-18 and Isaiah 34:13



First, I didn't see your work. No basis for your conclusion that God gave things for humans to eat that are harmful, and as for the additional question it just didn't make any sense to me. I don't think that your explaining or elaborating would help because I don't think you are headed in the right direction.

Tell me what you think when we conclude this.

it's a sticky, prickly situation. the earth is cursed, the body, the tree of judgement creates a closed minded, or dead end result


here in then is the tree of life

Psalm 1:3
And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.


so again, it is all about a state of mind, or metapsychology.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
You said that God gave humans "every plant for food" and assumed that there were "no exceptions", so this - as well as including the plants you listed which can and do have poisonous properties - must necessarily mean he gave us poisonous plants to eat, too. If you want to change the terms and indicate that God didn't gives us all plants to eat, but only some of them, you'd have to find some way to distinguish between the ones intended to be eaten or not intended to be eaten, in which case you'd be answering your own query.

What existed outside of the garden that wasn't inside the garden? What, botanically speaking, was a result of Adam's sin?

Not much, just that the Bible is a little vague in this area and that, even if we determine a very specific interpretation, we can still draw multiple conclusions as to God's possible intentions.

Nothing wrong with that. Consider all of the possibilities.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Earthling:

10 Methods Scientists Use to Date Things | Mental Floss

May 04, 2009 · 10 Methods Scientists Use to Date Things. Left and right, archaeologists are radiocarbon dating objects: fossils, documents, shrouds of Turin. They do it by comparing the ratio of an unstable isotope, carbon-14, to the normal, stable carbon-12. All living things have about the same level of carbon-14, but when they die it begins to decay...


10 Methods Scientists Use to Date Things

What about the possibility of error? What would the margin of error be? How far off might they have been?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
What existed outside of the garden that wasn't inside the garden? What, botanically speaking, was a result of Adam's sin?
Now I fear I'm being drawn into more complex theological waters that are only best answered by God themselves, if they can. Do you believe the plants you listed were in the garden?
 
Top