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

How so?

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.

What is the significance of the tree of life here?
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Were there thorns and thistles in the garden? What was it like outside the garden? The place Adam and Ever were exiled.

I'm not sure what you want me to do. I don't understand the texts you gave but in response you asked more questions about the text instead of explaining it.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
It has been my experience that the amused ones are, just under the surface, just as angry, and on top of that they don't take it serious. The result being they mock and scorn, which can be fun for a while, for me as well, because I will return in kind, but there's a considerable degree of anger 'neath my surface as well and it just gets ugly real quick.

You and I may have gone down that road a ways.

Well, this is not my case, obviously. And I noticed that often believers donfuse challenges with mocking, mainly to avoid the challenge.

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Well, why do you think the Jews drain all of the blood from their meat and Jehovah's Witnesses don't get blood transfusions?

And you think that is a sensible thing to do? You will have a lot problems to find atheists who have a mind so open to buy the plausibility of that.

Especially without a shred of evidence apart from an ancient book.

Ciao

- viole
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
How so?



What is the significance of the tree of life here?

the tree of life and the tree of judgement are one tree.

judge righteously, not by appearance but by action.


again, it is a state of mind. self clings to either view, self can hang on either tree.


the dualist sees two trees having fixated on one, loses sight of the other. tree of judgement vs tree of life.


the monist only sees one tree having two outcomes. a tree is known by it's fruit


two birds, beautiful of wings, close companions, cling to one common tree: of the two one eats the sweet fruit of that tree; the other eats not but watches his companion. The self is the bird that sits immersed on the common tree; but because he is not lord he is bewildered and has sorrow. But when he sees that other who is the Lord and the beloved, he knows that all is His greatness and his sorrow passes away from him. When, a seer, he sees the Golden-hued, the maker, the Lord, the Spirit who is the source of Brahman, then he becomes the knower and shakes from his wings sin and virtue; pure of all stains he reaches the supreme identity.


Spirit is born of Spirit

John 3:5-John 3:8 ESV Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
 

sooda

Veteran Member
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?

Its an allegory.. as hunter gatherers they depended on "God" for everything..

Agrarians began to collect seeds, build granaries, settle into more permanent camps and do for themselves. Cain represents the new agrarians.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I'm not sure what you want me to do. I don't understand the texts you gave but in response you asked more questions about the text instead of explaining it.

Outside of the garden the earth was harsh. There were thorns and thistles. Inside the garden was the opposite. Paradise. We get the word paradise from the Greek word for garden. Pa·ra′dei·sos.

Can we not logically conclude that harmful plants, such as the ones mentioned in the earlier thread, marijuana, opium, cocaine were not in the garden and so not included in the plants Adam and Eve were encouraged to eat?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
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?

"The great majority of the cultivated plants of the world trace their origin to Asia.

Out of 640 important cultivated plants, about 500 originated in Southern Asia. In Asia alone we have established five of the principle regions of cultivated plants....

The fifth region of origin in Asia is the Southwestern Asiatic centre and includes Asia Minor, Trans-Caucasia, Iran and Western Turkmenistan. This region is remarkable, first of all, for its richness in numbers of species of wheat resistant to different diseases...

There is no doubt that Armenia is the chief home of cultivated wheat. Asia Minor and Trans-Caucasia gave origin to rye which is represented here by a great number of varieties and species....

Our studies show definitely that Asia is not only the home of the majority of modern cultivated plants, but also of our chief domesticated animals such as the cow, the yak, the buffalo, sheep, goat, horse, and pig...The chief home of the cow and other cattle, the Oriental type of horse, the goat and the sheep is specifically Iran....

continued

Adam and offspring as Farmers, a Key to understanding Genesis
 

Earthling

David Henson
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?

I believe that it was most likely that they were not in the garden, just as thorns and thistles were not likely there. Of course, I don't think it logical to conclude that God meant they could eat literally everything in the garden, aside from, of course, the forbidden.

Atheists often take an impractically extreme literal interpretation of the Bible to make it seem impractical itself. For example, I don't see Adam and Eve gnawing on the bark of a fig tree.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Outside of the garden the earth was harsh. There were thorns and thistles. Inside the garden was the opposite. Paradise. We get the word paradise from the Greek word for garden. Pa·ra′dei·sos.

Can we not logically conclude that harmful plants, such as the ones mentioned in the earlier thread, marijuana, opium, cocaine were not in the garden and so not included in the plants Adam and Eve were encouraged to eat?

Assuming this is all true, sure we could include that, but doesn't that go against what you said here, "It would seem that he did, since there are no exceptions given in Genesis 1:29."
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It doesn't have to agree with mine. I really don't think that the quotes I gave you indicated that God necessarily had anything to do with it.

Some were quite clear that it is God that destroys souls, not people.

All you have to determine is whether or not souls end. That's it.

Some do. Not all. At least, not according to the verses you gave (and those surrounding them).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe that it was most likely that they were not in the garden, just as thorns and thistles were not likely there. Of course, I don't think it logical to conclude that God meant they could eat literally everything in the garden, aside from, of course, the forbidden.

Atheists often take an impractically extreme literal interpretation of the Bible to make it seem impractical itself. For example, I don't see Adam and Eve gnawing on the bark of a fig tree.

So how do you know the plants you mentioned *were* in the garden? how do you know they were not also forbidden?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Do you believe in literal Adam and Eve?

Ciao

- viole

The Adam and Eve story may be about the transition from hunter gatherers to agrarian lifestyle. Cain being the new agriculturist. The timing of the story would fit with the timetable for the development of agriculture..

Maybe the original sin was that instead of depending on God, they started collecting seeds, planting and building granaries.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The Adam and Eve story may be about the transition from hunter gatherers to agrarian lifestyle. Cain being the new agriculturist. The timing of the story would fit with the timetable for the development of agriculture..

For sure, that transition allowed to allocate some members of the tribe to do some office work. Like priests. So, it makes some sense that the first books appeared at that time.

Maybe the original sin was that instead of depending on God, they started collecting seeds, planting and building granaries.

If that is the case, then there are still a few tribes today that original sin free.

Ciao

- viole
 

sooda

Veteran Member
For sure, that transition allowed to allocate some members of the tribe to do some office work. Like priests. So, it makes some sense that the first books appeared at that time.



If that is the case, then there are still a few tribes today that original sin free.

Ciao

- viole

Ha! I hadn't thought of that.

Seems to me that the hunter gatherers must have been highly mobile and trusting in God's providence.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Some were quite clear that it is God that destroys souls, not people.

When a person or animal dies, their soul dies no matter the cause of death. In a sense God destroys all, as they all belong to him and after Adam's sin all died. In that respect he destroys all souls, including the spirit creatures. What we were trying to establish, is simply are souls destructible. Mortal. All of them are capable of being destroyed, except for God

Some do. Not all. At least, not according to the verses you gave (and those surrounding them).

You seem to be implying that the soul can only be destroyed by God. What is the soul? Does God have or is God a soul? Just because you can determine that some souls can die or be destroyed, by any means, don't mean that only some of them can be destroyed.

We know from the Bible that the soul is the life, life experiences, passions, desires, etc. of the person, spirit creature or animal. Lets do some etymology. Though none of this is relevant because all we needed is the conclusion that souls can perish. Everything else was an attempt to make you see whether or not this was the case.

The Old English word soul comes from a root word which means "to bind." This is due to the fact that the superstitious would bind the hands and feet of the dead upon burial to prevent them in the "undead" state from harming the living. So the word soul isn't a suitable translation of the Hebrew
ne′phesh [נֶפֶשׁ] or Greek psy·khe′ [ψυχή]. In fact, in 1966, I believe it was, the Jerusalem Bible removed all translations of the word soul and replaced them with the transliteration of the Hebrew / Greek.

So, the word soul is the closest thing they could find in translation, but it isn't a very accurate representation of the original language.

To the Bible writers the "soul" (Hebrew nephesh Greek psykhe) was something altogether different. It was the life of any breathing creature. The Hebrew nephesh comes from a root word that means "to breath" so the word literally means "breather."
 

Earthling

David Henson
Do you believe in literal Adam and Eve?

Yes. Adam had children who had children who were all listed on the genealogy. They are referred to all throughout the Bible as literal people. The only reason to think they were allegorical is that one can't accept they were real. There is no indication whatsoever that they were not literal people.
 
Top