1. Just like logic is not working with these “orthodox” officials. We don’t know what kind of “fruit” was on the forbidden tree. For all we know, it could be a fruit that was unique to that tree alone. Makes more sense than arbitrarily calling it an apple.

        What a bunch of orthodox clowns.

        1. skip the “orthodox clown” redundancy there was no forbidden tree and hence no fruit thereon. Orthodoxy, fundamentaliusm and extremeism aka the “big ball of belief” have delayed human progress long enough its time meno of reason grow a pair and get medieval on these scared ‘tards

    1. Actually no one actually knows what the exact situation was re Newton and the Apple but it is generally accepted that an Apple falling from the tree he sat under (close to whatever) did have some inspiration. Indeed the tree is still there.

    1. Nonsense? Didn’t the 300-or-so original Apple 1 motherboards sell to the HomeBrew Computer Club for $666? And isn’t OS X infested with Daemons?
      But, like the Beelzebub snake in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Apple products are too damn tempting, even for this fundamentalist Christian. (Typed on my MacBook Air. From hell.)

      1. “Some have gone so far as to cover up the logo and replace it with an image of a cross.”

        Clearly the logo is not preventing them from buying Apple products.

    2. Oh, by the way, this is the church that helped send a pair of women (members of the punk rock feminist band Pussy Riot) into 2 years of work at a labor camp for playing a protest song against the tyrant Putin (and the church’s alliance with him) in a church.

      Seriously – look this up at http://freepussyriot.com

      1. Re-Executive assistant to god
        Ask your employer- a.k.a. THE Flying Spaghetti Monster- what kind of sauce he’s using these days.

        I’m guessing Newman’s Own, since Paul went to the big banquet hall a little while back.

    1. In any case, I don’t see why they have to react like this. Why don’t they stop all fruit sellers from selling apples?

      Do they eat apples themselves? I suppose not. Why apples and not figs or papaya or dates?

      1. While apple seems to be the popularly held belief, somehow the quince has been theorized as the original evil fruit. Few people even know WTF a quince is so I’m guessing it was easier to go with apple.

  1. True Paul.
    Nor are we told there were exactly 3 wise men.
    We need to read the actual words in the Bible, not read things into it.
    Bonus comment: HS- You are a perfect example of the ‘tolerant’ people I keep hearing about who are anything but.

    1. Tolerance can be difficult sometimes. For instance, people like you are adamant that I am going to a mythical place called “hell” because I don’t believe [insert scripture here] or I do believe that homosexual marriage is OK.

      Truth be told, if hell actually exists and religious fanatics are going somewhere else, then hell sounds just fine to me. It would be a step up compared to the status quo.

      1. @Kingmel “people like you…”. Any sentence beginning with “people like you” is filled with prejudice. Insert another group there, especially a group you care about and see how it looks. Like “Zune lovers.” 😉

        1. It’s not prejudice at all. The “people” in question have self-identified as belonging to a group with a long list of beliefs that are integral to membership in the group.

          Both the concept of hell, and rejection of homosexual marriage, are simply a given when talking about most religions. If they’re not part of your particular belief system, well I suppose KingMel wasn’t talking to you. But “Letter” was advocating a literal reading of the bible, so we know exactly what he believes, no “prejudice” involved.

      2. Amazing how many people just like you have no concept of what he’ll will be like!

        The point is that you will face Almighty God covered with the stain of your sin…and your excuse? “I never bothered to find out the truth and thought it was all mythology. I never used logic nor reason to see where the evidence pointed so have rejected your Son and what He did for me”

        Please, reconsider and examine the evidence, or ask God to reveal the truth to you. You may well be surprised. .

      1. The bible’s original definition of marriage involved one man and one woman. Adam and Eve. In later centuries, polygamy was tolerated, but not advocated under any law. Look it up. Laws for polygamy were to regulate it, but there was no law which said “though shalt take multiple wives.”

        The original definition was restored in the 1st century with the Christians.

    2. You can’t read the actual words of the Bible. Do you speak Hebrew (ancient), Greek (classic), Old Aramic? The hundreds of documents that were translated (into Latin), edited, revised, deleted, reworded and faked in the third century A.D. never came from a single ancient text.

      1. Wow – do you really believe what you have written? If so you try actually studying the subject matter…you will find there is more manuscript evidence for the Bible than any other ancient text by a long way. From memory conservative estimates put it at 13,000 original manuscripts

        1. Wrong. The “original” manuscripts we have are still copies of copies of copies, and since the previous copies no longer exist, we really don’t know how many there were. The earliest copies are scraps, and the earliest complete manuscripts date from the latter 2nd century. Besides, Tflint’s point is well taken, that even if we DID have the originals, they were not all written in the same language, and those languages are all no longer living, so we can’t know all of the meanings of the words we can read. So a lot of the original meanings or references are lost to us. Nobody is saying the bible doesn’t exist, it does, of course. But we just don’t know what the first manuscripts of any of the documents that make up the bible said before all the mistakes, changes, or deliberate manipulations occurred.

          1. The dead sea “scraps” are remarkable in that agree with the manuscripts written later. I believe the dead sea “scraps” were from the 3rd century BC (or thereabouts). There have been a few scribal errors through the years, and a few changes made (for example, replacing God’s name in Hebrew with LORD) but by and large there is far more evidence for accuracy of the bible than most any other book in history.

            It’s funny, we have more evidence of accuracy of the bible than books that document the history of Alexander the Great or Napoleon, yet no one doubts much of what was written about them.

            1. Correction: the earliest Dead sea scrolls are from about 180 CE.

              Before they were found, the earliest available were from the 10th century. It was found that remarkably, the copies of copies of copies we have today, are essentially unchanged, with the exception of a few scribal errors ( typos, etc. ). Sure, we don’t have a FULL list, but out of the tens of thousands of scraps, we haven’t found much in the way of major errors. If there were, there are PLENTY of people today that would LOVE to make a VERY public mission of exposing it.

              When you think about this, the oldest copies were before Christianity became the state religion (in other words, more likely open to manipulation by political leaders) and yet the copies we have today are still relatively intact. Goes to show you that despite going through a long period where you were burned alive for owning a bible and the church had ultimate authority and tried to keep people in the dark regarding the book, the actual text we have today largely remained intact.

              You combine this with the remarkable candor of the biblical accounts, the archaeological confirmation of much of the bible chronology (keeping in mind that archaeology is not an exact science, and there is still disagreement among archaeologists themselves) and other documentary accounts from other historians (which we must remember would have some bias) and you have a book that can be confidently stated as being quite historically accurate.

              I don’t doubt the religious hypocrisy that exists in much of religion out there, but more often than not, these church officials aren’t following the book they preach about.

        2. The oldest transcripts of New Testament writings run about 40 years after the fact and were hand copied in the old world. That’s a lot of room for ‘interpretation’ and other crap.

          It’s a damn myth.

          If a god wanted to communicate with a world they created and did no better than this, I’d call bullshit. In fact, I’m calling bullshit.

          1. Yes, but most that early are simply scraps. The earliest complete transcripts are mid to late 2nd century. Don’t forget, the latest new testament “books” were written early to mid 2nd century themselves, but again, the earliest copies are mere scraps. Read Bart Ehrman’s books for details.

            1. The thing is… if those scraps are accurate, then you can apply statistical analysis, along with common sense to extrapolate the likelihood of the accuracy of the whole.

              Did you know that when building airplanes they don’t check the accuracy of every single piece? Rather they use statistical analysis to test x pieces of each batch and use those findings to determine with reasonable accuracy whether there is likely to be defects in the batch. If there is a problem, they take a larger sample. Math to the rescue.

              Since, by and large, the scraps and early manuscripts are remarkably identical to current copies, we can say, with a certain degree of accuracy that the bible as a whole has a high degree of fidelity within its pages. Despite it being copied. Before printing, this is what scribes did. They took this very seriously.

              This is why it’s rare that the fidelity of the copies are challenged in any meaningful forum. It is, simply put, a book with by FAR the most number of ancient manuscripts. The sheer volume of scraps and manuscripts alone speaks volumes.

              How church leaders chose to twist the teachings is another matter.

      1. Yeah, gives conservatism a bad name. Well, at least I got this finely crafted iPad to type on, made by the godless Chinese Proletariat. I always knew we would conquer communism. I thought it would be Gene Roddenberry, but am happy that it was Steve Jobs who went on to put them in their place.

        1. “gives conservatism a bad name”

          Since the 1970s social conservatives have giving fiscal conservatives ulcers. One is not the same as the other.

          I care not what another social views are, as long as those views do not impact me (and I do not mean in the abstract).

          On the other hand when sound fiscal policy is violated to provide financial assistance to any person, company or group, I go livid. I believe that makes me a fiscal conservative. If the entity can’t survive without government (mine) financial support, then it has no economic value to the whole. This is especially true when fiscal liberals think it OK to BORROW funds to favor one person, group or company over others.

          Borrowing money to give it away is just ludicrous.

          1. +1
            As a fiscal, small gov conservative, it’s galling to be lumped into the religious right. Alert: it IS possible to be a conservative and still hold moderate or even liberal social attitudes. That said, I prefer our government representatives have a belief in a “higher power”. It’s hard to protect our “inalienable rights” if one believes they originate from Man, because what one man gives, another can take away.

            1. This is where you are wrong IMO.

              You say you disagree with the religious right, yet you lump yourself into the conservative camp and this helps to enable them.

              You sound like a libertarian or independent to me.

              How is the GOP going to get the message that the religious rule is not acceptable to most people in this land if you and Greg and others keep supporting them.

              This is one of the bind-boggling conflicts I do not get with the GOP. On one day a GOP member will get up and complain about “the individual mandate” to have health insurance as being government overreach, but with the next breath will talk about banning abortion. As if telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies ISN’T overreach.

              How about auto insurance? It is legally required that you have it, where is the outcry and rush to remove this government overreach? Seatbelt laws?

            2. Then @Truth, you are simply a dupe of the media, like most, not realizing that people are individuals before they are anything else. I too am fiscal conservative. I am also an atheist. If that’s too mind boggling for you, wake up and drink some coffee and quit gulping down the liberal kool-aid.

              I also don’t care about abortion. Women can have as many as they like. 5, 10, 15 a year. I couldn’t possibly care less. Just don’t ask me to pay for them.

              The difference between auto-insurance and health-insurance is that you being forced to have auto-insurance protects me. In order to exercise the privilege to drive on the road, you must prove that you can accept the responsibility of the destruction you may cause. With health insurance the government is stepping in and saying, “You will either get health insurance for yourself or else.” Very different. Also, near as I can tell, the only change with Obama care is that if I cannot afford health insurance now, I still won’t be able to afford it, but… I will be fined $600, or $700 by the government for not having it. 2000 pages of gobbledygook just to tax me in the end.

            3. You just couldn’t get involved without slinging insults could you? Try to have a rational discussion and you start with insults.

              Here is a hint, when someone asks a question about your beliefs, starting by denigrating theirs isn’t a sound strategy for communication. I realize the tone of the site has been heated and nasty in the past, and while I am guilty of joining the fray myself, I was attempting to change the tact and shoot for reasonable conversation on the topics. It seams MDN likes to stir up the political debate, I was trying to adjust the tone and have actual conversation. A pipe-dream I guess…

              Your ad-hominem attack weakens your position. You tell me people are people first, accuse me of labeling/stereotyping and then do the thing you are taking me to taks on? WTF..

              Now onto your assertions:

              I am the furthest from being a ‘Dupe’ of the media as you can find, I am a vocal and frequent critic of it, and if you knew me in person you would agree. I neither trust it, nor celebrate it, it is not a driving factor in my ideology.

              We agree on abortion then, good. The only place I see a role for government is ensuring that those doctors are legit and licensed, the facilities to code, no different than any other medical facility.

              Me being forced to buy car insurance does not protect you, it protects your insurance company. It does not reduce accidents, it makes no one ‘safer’, it is a gift to the insurance industry. In decades of driving I have never caused nor been behind the wheel of an accident, my being forced to buy insurance doesn’t make anyone safe, my alert and responsible driving habits do. The government IS saying to me, get car insurance OR ELSE. There are fines and charges and potential loss of driving privileges hanging over my head if I do not comply.

              You left out seat belt laws, which like insurance laws are there to protect insurance companies. As are helmet laws.

              Bottom line, they restrict freedoms. If these are truly there to protect us, why is smoking legal? Why are other forms of risk taking celebrated and condoned? I agree it is sensible and smart to wear a helmet and wear seat belts, I practice it myself, but lets be honest about why it is a law. It is law because insurance companies wanted it to be and they lobbied to make it happen.

              On to Obamacare: I also disagree with the mandate, but there is much I like. I have college age kids, I like that we can keep them under an our insurance until 26. I also like the elimination of riders. As a former business owner I know first hand how awful it is to get insurance that works for you when you are not in a group plan. I talked to 16 different providers, EVERY single one wanted to rider my wifes Asthma, and allergies. (pre-existing condition) Leaving me with no coverage for the expensive drugs she takes every day, no coverage for emergencies related to those conditions, no coverage for doctor visits treating those problems. I asked everyone of them what they were good for if they could not address the most pressing needs I had for coverage in the first damn place. Why would I pay them $900+ a month if I wasn’t getting anything back each month at the pharmacy? I couldn’t figure it out, I went with medical savings account instead.

              At any rate, I fail to see a difference between these mandates, logically they are not different, I reject the mental gymnastics needed to adopt your position in this case.

            4. “It’s hard to protect our “inalienable rights” if one believes they originate from Man, because what one man gives, another can take away.”

              Seems Man has no problem taking those rights away from other men (and women), despite believing (allegedly) those rights somehow originate from a higher power.

              The rights recognized by the US constitution are the result of thousands of years of social and political history. For much of that history supposedly moral humans violated each others rights far worse.

              The 10 Commandments are a good example: it says “you shall not”. Of the six non-religious ones, those are really no-brainers (and yet “moral” religious people violate them constantly). The US Constitution and bill of rights OTOH does not say “you have the right” which implies granting–it effectively says “the GOVERNMENT shall not”.

              Of course, people have as much problem following the ideals of the constitution as they do their own religion.

          2. I believe W inherited a surplus from a liberal, he turned it into a deficit, and borrowed growing that deficit. That is fact sir, I realize it may not fit within your conservative narrative, but it is exactly what went down.

            Now onto your other statement…

            Just to clarify: Are you for ending farm subsidies? Energy Subsidies? Are you for reducing our out of control defense budget? How about ending tax exempt status for religious organizations? Federal Pell grants? Are you really saying NONE, or just targeting the specific programs you have disdain for?

            Serious question, trying to have a reasoned discussion. My views may differ, but I am trying to understand your point of view.

        2. Well truth is China operates more like National Socialism now so don’t get to excited by the transformation. Actually the Chinese have always been at the forefront of capitalism over many centuries held back only by feudalism and later Feudal Communism so hardly surprising that it has now been incorporated into the national psyche through political expediency.

  2. There are some posts in here where the focus is not Apple not technology but politics.

    Please, please, please, PLEASE, let’s NOT make it a religious forum discussion as well. Politics alone is already too much.

    My grandfather used to tell me, educated people never discuss of politics nor religion.

    And in time, I found out, there’s a good reason to it: Both topics involve a lot of passion and belief. And there’s no way in the world everybody will agree on any of those topics. So, it’s a fool’s errand to raise an opinion in a public forum (like this)

    I’m talking to both sides: religious and non-religious, with all due respect: Please, for the forum’s users sanity’s sake, let’s try to keep politics and religion out of our beloved technology forum.

    Thank you all.

    1. Politics and religion involve a lot of DELUSION, LIES and FANTASY.
      We need to talk MORE about it to get rid of all this crap.
      These russian idiots are the same loony power-mad fools who put three singers in jail – for singing..

      Two words for these wankers and one of them is ‘off’.

    2. I do my best to refrain from responding to the political and religious posts, but sometimes my best isn’t good enough. However, your post motivates me to try a little harder.

      First step – MDN needs to limit posts in this forum to *registered* names. We need to strongly advocate this idea to MDN as a unified group! Speak up!

      1. i’d agree, but that would 100% kill the MDN app…
        (You CAN log in with the app… but you have to post first)

        the push notifications from the app is the reason many of us even come here… If not for them i’d never think to read MDN anymore.

        As far as the “article”… leave Apple alone.

  3. How long has Apple had this logo and they are NOW complaining about it? Also, if they think it is so bad, why buy an apple computer and then cover up the logo, why not just not buy from Apple?

  4. Give me a break! This is totally stupid. Apple has been around for how long now and now they complain. Oh by the way, the bible doesn’t say what kind of fruit it was Adam and Eve ate. Give me chapter and verse that says it was an apple!!

    I’m waiting….

    1. This isn’t the first time that this complaint has surfaced. It won’t be the last. Some people/groups need something to complain about. If nothing exists, then they will create something to complain about. Just ignore them.

  5. Actually – the company Apple Computers, Inc. was named after Steve Jobs experience picking apples one season AND his love of the Beatles music label “Apple Music”… that’s what the lawsuit between Apple Computers and Apple Music was all about for so long. When Apple Computers wanted to become Apple, Inc. there was more legal wrangling between the two parties.

    I was not aware of any litigation between Adam and Eve (the official representatives of and Garden of Eden fruit hassles).
    Maybe the consider the products produced by Apple, Inc. to not resemble any likeness to the image of the alluded to fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil or the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in said garden. So, no Lucy Fur could hold a court hearing over the alleged fruit problem.


Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.