It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forbidden Fruit

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

incorrect, conflicting, unscientific and ethically and morally ambivilant



incorrect


Geological events are said to be the will of a deity, that Tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes are punishment for a deity.


conflicting




7mb infochart showing the contradictions in the bible


unscientific


Again, geological events are not dictated by a deity, but occur because we live on a heating and cooling planet.

Also, we are not at the centre of the universe, the Sun does not travel around the Earth despite what many Christians preached (without evidence) and despite the years it took them to apologise to Gallileo.

Quite sure the earth isn't 6000 years old.


unscientific and ethically and morally ambivilant




Again, i'll reference passages and demonstrate why they are

incorrect, conflicting, unscientific and ethically and morally ambivilant
if you do so demand.




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



If you really enjoy a good Christian bashing, there are plenty of threads for that already. Thanks for understanding.


No problem; i love a good debate, i love intellectual enquiry.

My responses wern't just the benefit of yourself, anyway.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


That's an improvement, but way off topic. And I'm pretty sure most of what you touched on is already being run into the ground in existing threads.

PS: seen all that before, typically from "resource" sites like infidels.org, talkorigins, etc. But I'd be happy to engage ONE individual on ONE topic/point if they can be civilized and not parrot anti-Christian talking points. Sometime.
edit on 3-6-2011 by SaberTruth because: added a thought...



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


My apologies for derailing the thread.

But if i see refutations of someone's theocratic criticisms, i will respond with MY refutations. Say what you want about those websites, they quote the bible directly, every criticism of the bible isn't just a eschatological misunderstanding. Hellfire is what was preached, Damnation, Eternal punishment, eternal pain. Believers can imply metaphors all they want, it's still as sinister as a metaphor as it is to a claim to truth.

Again, my apologies for pulling the thread further away from the OP.

I'll let everyone get back to forbidden fruit...

edit on 3/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



incorrect, conflicting, unscientific and ethically and morally ambivilant"-- all without having to lift a finger to justify it!


Please, if you disagree with my arguments - Perhaps you'd like me to further expand; providing sources, passages from the bible? I'm more than happy to do so, to verify my arguments.

Just say the word.


First before you prove Christianity a lie and all of us simplton retards could you explain how any of this has anything to do with Genesis chapter 3?

I'll wipe the drool off my keyboard and try to follow along.

Please type SLOWLY!!!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
wow... ok i thought we were talking about a piece of fruit


look as im the OP.. im really not interesting in if this story or even the bible is truth or not.. im a non believer as ive stated earlier... but i believe in each to their own... and the bible + god was a huge part of my life in my younger years... so put aside whether or not this fruit, tree, snake story is fact or fiction in ur mind for a second.. + look at it as just a simple question.. (not that im in need of an answer to this as i dont believe in a God to start with.. i simply thought this random thought i had was an interesting question)

the question being...

"if the tree/fruit in question is an actual tree/fruit.. + God requested humans not to eat it.. could it be that we are still disobeying God + eating this fruit today..?"

if u find a need to dismiss that the God in question actually exists or not to start with then simply dont reply on this thread... as its not what this thread is about.

Cheers.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Vamp333
 



look as im the OP.. im really not interesting in if this story or even the bible is truth or not.. im a non believer as ive stated earlier... but i believe in each to their own... and the bible + god was a huge part of my life in my younger years... so put aside whether or not this fruit, tree, snake story is fact or fiction in ur mind for a second..



I don't know if you're new around here or not. But you'll notice it's impossible for the radical, evangelical Atheists on ATS to follow the TOS for the "Religion, Faith, and Theology" forum. It clearly says in the OP of the stickied thread titled "ALL MEMBERS READ - Moving Past Religion 101 and Staying on Topic" that unless specifically addressed in the topic of a thread, it's assumed for the sake of argument that God does in fact exist.



'Some of the topics in this forum will most certainly deal with the existence of God. Does God really exist? While this is a worth-while topic many members wish to move past this introductory theme, past Religion 101, and would like to dive into deeper topic of religion and faith..

We can't begin to truly discuss these topics if we're constantly arguing about if God is real or not..

If you have questions that deal with the existence of God or want to ask if Mohammed actually was a real person or a myth, then please start a new discussion with a meaningful, appropriate title and you may then dominate a new discussion with this theme in mind. Please do not interject into deeper religious topics the question of the reality of a higher being. Unless stated in the topic, we are assuming in this forum that we've moved on past that point. Imagine discussing algebra while someone keeps interjecting that they still don’t believe in addition. The very reason that classes such as these have prerequisites is so new ground can be covered in the subject.


Welcome to what we have to deal with around here on a daily basis.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Thank you, sir, for that lucid, rational, and magnificently patient response. You handled it with far greater elegance than I was about to...

.


...aaaaaanyway, getting the thread back on track, my understanding is as follows:

******
1) Nowhere in Genesis does scripture mention an "apple." This is only a figure of artistic convention.

Gen. 3:2-3
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


Let's look at the Hebrew. Note the bolded words. (Hebrew Word #s refer to Strong's Concordance numbers)

"Fruit of the tree"
פְּרִי : (per-ee') -- Hebrew word # 6529 = fruit, produce (of the ground), or b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny ( used of the womb), or figuratively c) fruit (of actions).

"ate of it"
אכל : (aw-kal') -- Hebrew word # 6529 = Multiple meanings including to lay with a woman (i.e., carnally)

"touch"
נגע: (naw-gah') -- Hebrew word # 5060: To touch, ie: to lay the hand upon (for any purpose); euphemism for: to lie with a woman.


Genesis 3:6
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


"pleasant to the eyes"
חמד : (chamad) -- Hebrew word #2530 To desire, to covet, to take pleasure in, to delight in, to be desirable, to delight greatly, to desire greatly, desirableness, preciousness.

"desired"
תאוה: (tah-av-aw') -- Hebrew word # 8378 from 183 (abbrev.); to yearn for, to lust after (used of bodily appetites) a longing; by implication, a delight (subjectively, satisfaction, objectively, a charm): a desire, a wish,

I believe the language is figurative for sexual immorality.I believe that the fruit was carnal knowledge, taught to Eve by the Serpent and to Adam by Eve.

There is more evidence but that's enough for now.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Partygirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Partygirl

I believe the language is figurative for sexual immorality.I believe that the fruit was carnal knowledge, taught to Eve by the Serpent and to Adam by Eve.

There is more evidence but that's enough for now.

You're certainly not alone in that view, but again I appeal to Ockham's Razor and see no reason to read into the text topics which are never hinted at in any other part of the Bible when discussing this passage. The emphasis in any of them is that Eve was "beguiled" into thinking she could be like God. Some say the sexual meaning is possible because of the statement about "your desire will be for your husband. But the word "teshuqa" was changed from its original meaning of simply "turning" to "desire" through the influence of the Talmud (one source). Also, grammatically the "desire" or "covet" of 3:6 goes with "to be wise", so we are told right there in the text what that "coveting" is, and again it has nothing to do with sex; and I couldn't help but notice that this essential part of the sentence was not included in your analysis.

Any NT ref. to Eve is focused on the deception of Satan and the order of creation; none introduce a sexual component.
edit on 4-6-2011 by SaberTruth because: added a thought...



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Vamp333
 



look as im the OP.. im really not interesting in if this story or even the bible is truth or not.. im a non believer as ive stated earlier... but i believe in each to their own... and the bible + god was a huge part of my life in my younger years... so put aside whether or not this fruit, tree, snake story is fact or fiction in ur mind for a second..



I don't know if you're new around here or not. But you'll notice it's impossible for the radical, evangelical Atheists on ATS to follow the TOS for the "Religion, Faith, and Theology" forum. It clearly says in the OP of the stickied thread titled "ALL MEMBERS READ - Moving Past Religion 101 and Staying on Topic" that unless specifically addressed in the topic of a thread, it's assumed for the sake of argument that God does in fact exist.



'Some of the topics in this forum will most certainly deal with the existence of God. Does God really exist? While this is a worth-while topic many members wish to move past this introductory theme, past Religion 101, and would like to dive into deeper topic of religion and faith..

We can't begin to truly discuss these topics if we're constantly arguing about if God is real or not..

If you have questions that deal with the existence of God or want to ask if Mohammed actually was a real person or a myth, then please start a new discussion with a meaningful, appropriate title and you may then dominate a new discussion with this theme in mind. Please do not interject into deeper religious topics the question of the reality of a higher being. Unless stated in the topic, we are assuming in this forum that we've moved on past that point. Imagine discussing algebra while someone keeps interjecting that they still don’t believe in addition. The very reason that classes such as these have prerequisites is so new ground can be covered in the subject.


Welcome to what we have to deal with around here on a daily basis.


That's all very well, but I find your present insistence on topic-relevance somewhat hypocritical, considering how often you get side-tracked or initiate side-tracks. As I and many others do; I'm not pretending to be better, only not to get 'tactical', (mis)using forum-rules, when it suits my purposes.

And slowly working my way back to topic, the next level is, that assumptions may have their justified use as communication starting-points/platforms (I start from 'here' and go on), this is often misused and leads to "from my here-and-now basic assumption, I conlude the following absolute truths", which is not part of the bargain.

Which, arriving to present thread-topic, opens the question of the title: 'Forbidden fruit' as related to OP's more specific question of the type of fruit referred to.

Amongst the pro-christian inputs here there has also been a symbolical approach to the overall situation, not centering exclusively on the type of fruit. This extends the topic to a broader perspective and is an inter-christian dispute of who the 'true christians' really are. And christian-critics hang on to that in various ways.

Taking a virtuous stance of debate-'purity' when positions become messy can be valid, but that requires a consequent attitude, not a just 'for the duration'.
edit on 4-6-2011 by bogomil because: paragraphing



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I do try.




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



That's all very well, but I find your present insistence on topic-relevance somewhat hypocritical, considering how often you get side-tracked or initiate side-tracks. As I and many others do; I'm not pretending to be better, only not to get 'tactical', (mis)using forum-rules, when it suits my purposes.


I'd never suggest I've never posted an off-topic post, I have, we all have. Sometimes in the heat of debate we all forget the forum rules. But how can you say that pointing out this particular rule is "mis-using" the forum rules when it suits my purposes?? That's absurd, the precise reason the rule is in place is clearly defined by the supermoderator. It's impossible for those of us wishing to delve deeper into Theological issues if we have to keep arguing the basics in every thread. Some of us wish to argue deeper Theological issues than "God exists", "Nuuh uhhh, no he doesn't."

Furthermore, no one is claiming that God's existence or non-existence cannot be argued or discussed! If that's your cup of tea then you can author 20+ threads a day that deal with God's existence, no one is denying anyone that right here.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It's impossible for those of us wishing to delve deeper into Theological issues if we have to keep arguing the basics in every thread. Some of us wish to argue deeper Theological issues than "God exists", "Nuuh uhhh, no he doesn't."

This is the "elephant in the living room" at ATS. I've seen off-topic posts, trolling, bad behavior, etc. rapidly excised in other areas, but in anything Christianity-related the rules aren't enforced well, if at all. And because of that, people of faith cannot have a civilized, adult conversation. It's like trying to discuss differential calculus in a day-care center. Some members think that if a thread is in the public domain it means "talk about whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want", and if we don't like it, we should just shut up and hide. Yet they claim to be so tolerant and "free thinking". Methinks that word really means "free of thinking" and completely undisciplined. They respect no one who doesn't buy into their worldview. And then they wonder why we call them trolls. o.O



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil
 



That's all very well, but I find your present insistence on topic-relevance somewhat hypocritical, considering how often you get side-tracked or initiate side-tracks. As I and many others do; I'm not pretending to be better, only not to get 'tactical', (mis)using forum-rules, when it suits my purposes.


I'd never suggest I've never posted an off-topic post, I have, we all have. Sometimes in the heat of debate we all forget the forum rules. But how can you say that pointing out this particular rule is "mis-using" the forum rules when it suits my purposes?? That's absurd, the precise reason the rule is in place is clearly defined by the supermoderator. It's impossible for those of us wishing to delve deeper into Theological issues if we have to keep arguing the basics in every thread. Some of us wish to argue deeper Theological issues than "God exists", "Nuuh uhhh, no he doesn't."

Furthermore, no one is claiming that God's existence or non-existence cannot be argued or discussed! If that's your cup of tea then you can author 20+ threads a day that deal with God's existence, no one is denying anyone that right here.


Fine, we seemingly agree on the practical handling of the question, which is to leave it moderators.

My interest in god/not-god can be academic or from the impact on society of this subject. And as to the 'deeper' aspects of theological issues I'm not exactly ignorant about them, though my methods and 'answers' differ from yours.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


You wrote:

["And because of that, people of faith cannot have a civilized, adult conversation"]

Can this be read, as if you're persecuted?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It's impossible for those of us wishing to delve deeper into Theological issues if we have to keep arguing the basics in every thread. Some of us wish to argue deeper Theological issues than "God exists", "Nuuh uhhh, no he doesn't."

This is the "elephant in the living room" at ATS. I've seen off-topic posts, trolling, bad behavior, etc. rapidly excised in other areas, but in anything Christianity-related the rules aren't enforced well, if at all. And because of that, people of faith cannot have a civilized, adult conversation. It's like trying to discuss differential calculus in a day-care center. Some members think that if a thread is in the public domain it means "talk about whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want", and if we don't like it, we should just shut up and hide. Yet they claim to be so tolerant and "free thinking". Methinks that word really means "free of thinking" and completely undisciplined. They respect no one who doesn't buy into their worldview. And then they wonder why we call them trolls. o.O


What if we all agree to simply ignore rude, off-topic, intrusive Athiest posts? If we just simply don't respond then conversations among Christians can progress to a higher level.

Or, technically, there is recource to the alert button if the T&C are obviously broken, right?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


yes thats exactly what I was trying to say...
maybe you should read the whole thing again + not just that paragraph you have singled out.

and let me just add.. one shouldnt assume that just because a person does not believe in a God that they are instantly an Atheist... I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...!!!

Cheers.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Vamp333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Partygirl
What if we all agree to simply ignore rude, off-topic, intrusive Athiest posts? If we just simply don't respond then conversations among Christians can progress to a higher level.

Or, technically, there is recource to the alert button if the T&C are obviously broken, right?

As Not said, the ignoring of the troll posts is what we continually have to do here. It isn't tolerated in other areas, and I'm pretty sure those other areas don't wait for people to push panic buttons. The mods can be amazingly fast when they want to be.

But here we are again, off topic, talking about each other instead of the OP. But since that's been more than adequately covered, maybe it's time to just let the whole thing go. :-)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
maybe it's time to just let the whole thing go. :-)


i agree.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vamp333
 


I didn't call you an atheist. There are a small handful of radical, evangelical Atheists on here that I was refering to.

If I gave you the impression I was singling you out my apology.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join