Darnoc Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 But heres the real question: Was the forbidden fruit Really an apple? I don't know where the idea comes from that the fruit was an apple, but I heard it several times. But there is nothing in the bible to support this theory and when we look at the text, the fruit had some special abilities (giving you knowlegde) and as far as I know, an apple doesn't do this. So I assume that the fruit was a unique kind of fruit, not existing today anywhere. What is an even more important question: Are all the people here who call themselves atheists far more fundamentalist Jews/Christians than most people who actually belong to these religions? I don't know acctually, but who is atheist in this forum? The only ones I am positive about are Peregrine and Acrid. You don't refer to them, do you? :blink: But I think the question is really important. I have wittnessed atheists being very fundamental about their believes and couldn't accept any criticism while religious people stayed calm and even could accept when they were wrong about something. A lot of atheists really say "it is proven" and want to tell everyone else how wrong everyone else is and that I think is fundamental. I have seen a lot of religious people being a lot more tolerant than atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgoth Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 I was in fact referring to Peregrine. His statements do have the impression on me that he is looking at the bible from an entirely fundamentalist point of view, i.e. he takes bible passages absolutely literally and thinks that they are meant to be looked upon as both history and fact. Especially in ragards to the passages 3) God punished them as sinners and declared their acts sin, despite not fitting the definition. and 1) God's defintion of sin is absolutely immoral and punishes "sinners" who had no knowledge that their acts were wrong. I get the impression that Peregrine thinks the story of the fall of Man as told in the bible has actually happened and that he can therefore draw conclusion about God's nature (whose existence he denies... o.O) and religion in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunky_Moose Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 Although I consider myself to be completely secular, I feel that I may have something to add. Drawing on the analogy of Adam and Eve being like babies - unable to distinguish between right and wrong etc. - I think that God has not overreacted at all. Parents scold their children when they do something 'wrong' in the parents' perception even if it does not appear so to the child or the child is unable to distinguish. That is the process through which we all learn to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil etc. The problem lies in this argument about the Forbidden Fruit being the source of the knowledge of good and evil. If it really is, then there is a difference between a young child and Adam and Eve - that when the child is told not to do something, it perceives the action that it has been forbidden from doing as being 'wrong'. However, if the Forbidden Fruit is the source of knowledge of right and wrong, then the baby - as offspring of Adam and Eve - possesses the knowledge from the fruit. However, if Adam and Eve had no concept of right and wrong whatsoever before eating the Fruit, then God telling them to not eat the Fruit would bear no weight or meaning with them and God surely must have known that is he was the arbiter of all knowledge and the Creator etc. There it is, my ramblings for today. I have not answered any questions as I has intended but now have presented another argument....oh great Now you see why i choose to be secular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Wasn't there once a thread on the morality of God? Hmm. I am an atheist also. I agree with Peregrine in most of what he says, though if I were arguing I would be less blunt. The bible is a series of stories designed to teach lessons so that those in charge could stay in charge. It is true that some of the stories contain a kernel of wisdom that was relevant at the time (a few still are today). Yet people still don't seem to understand that they were illustrative lessons and take them literally! As with A&E (Adam and Eve that is). We, the priests, are mouthpieces of God. If you don't do what we say (which is what He says of course) you'll be in big trouble. A credibility gap there, IMO. But it is merely that - my opinion - and other than expressing it I have no urgent need for others to agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Wasn't there once a thread on the morality of God? Hmm. Yeah, there was once one (I must know, I was one of the major actors of the play). It died after Hundiman and Peregrine almost killed eachother, sadly. There we see the negative example of both sides. I may have my own thoughts and believes but at least I can accept when I am wrong and there is no other argument I can give to counter the arguments of my opponent. But we should go back to topic or this is going to be a thread about ethics of discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgoth Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 We, the priests, are mouthpieces of God. If you don't do what we say (which is what He says of course) you'll be in big trouble. A credibility gap there, IMO.Don't want to dig further into that (it would require a separate thread), but you should distinguish church (=institution) from Christianity (=religion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 We, the priests, are mouthpieces of God. If you don't do what we say (which is what He says of course) you'll be in big trouble. A credibility gap there, IMO.Don't want to dig further into that (it would require a separate thread), but you should learn to distinguish church (=institution) from Christianity (=religion). I'm not sure it's quite that simple, Morgoth. I studied comparative religion and know a fair amount about all the world's major faiths and a bit about many of the minor ones. Almost all relate back to some or other form of formal text that was produced by an ecclesiastical 'caste' ot 'inspirational' leader. But I'm not off topic, at least I don't think I am. The thread is about the paradox of innocence/ignorance and commiting sin. I am simply saying that IMO the purpose of the story was different and therefore the existence of a paradox is unimportant. When these oral tales were first written down, as long as the main point came across clearly, the details didn't matter. And there's nothing wrong with it as a story for that. The question that Maquissar raises is born out of a more modern philosphical way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgoth Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Perhaps I have not got my point across that I do not deny that there are texts in the bible that are simply stories (the description of the creation of Earth would be one of them).However, I did object to statements that claimed all texts in the bible are purely fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Perhaps I have not got my point across that I do not deny that there are texts in the bible that are simply stories (the description of the creation of Earth would be one of them).However, I did object to statements that claimed all texts in the bible are purely fiction. There you are right, Morgoth. Some texts of the bible are historical accurate (at least in some parts) and were proven to be correct by archeological findings. For example it is proven that the biblical texts must be very old and were always copied very carefully, because the scrolls of Qumran (some of them ca. 200 BC) are almost to the last letter the same as the today hebraic texts. Or that they have found Hiskias water tunnel from the Gihon well to the pool of Siloah beneath Jerusalem. Also several kings of the Hebrews were mentioned in other sources than the bible (e.g. some texts of assyrian kings on which is written about their conquerings). There are a lot of other examples which prove that the bible is at least in some parts very accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOldFriend Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Time for my 2 sence. As said above that they had placed blame on someone or something else for how they came to eat the fruit (what ever the fruit might have been is not important) wich is completley true if you read the text it says that, that is how they got the fruit so they did not lie to god they told him the out right truth so there for they did not sin. And I would have to agree with the analogy of the baby (wich might not be a real good anaology considering we are said to be born sinners since A&E ate from the tree of knowledge) but nonthe less the closest thing we can get to to true inocence is a baby. How can you place blame on someone who does not know of what they are doing is right or wrong? Now about how some of the passages in the bible are purely story is not tru if you ever been to a bible study of some sort you will learn that the bible is written by god himself. Maybe not physicaly but it is told by god to those that did the writting. so therefore the begining and ending of time as written in the bible have to be true atleast to a christian because it is in gods own words or atleast mostly. So therefore the bible is a hostroy book of the past present and future and you can not deny that if you are a christian or even if you are not and know something about the christian faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.