Earthling
David Henson
How about all the poisonous plants?
Good point. How about them?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How about all the poisonous plants?
Sorry to butt in, but just thought I'd give my response if it's at all helpful.
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.
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.
Assuming this statement is true, “God have us every plant for food,” then I see no problem with eating any of the plants you mentioned.
Ok, now what?
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.Sure. Everyone is welcome. It's a public forum.
Why would we have to conclude that?
Could you be more specific? What doesn't make sense?I'm not seeing the sense in that.
Interesting.
Ok, tell me what you think about Genesis 3:17-18 and Isaiah 34:13.
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?
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?
Uh-huh. They say hindsight is 20/20 but I don't find that necessarily so.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Interesting.
Ok, tell me what you think about Genesis 3:17-18 and Isaiah 34:13.
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?What existed outside of the garden that wasn't inside the garden? What, botanically speaking, was a result of Adam's sin?