Christianity is a poor source of moral guidance

. . . I only go with what the story says and not with what I wish it said. In Genesis I see no mention of them being created with a perfect conscience and rejecting it. . .

I realize that not everyone can easily understand this. But it is one of the most important concepts in the bible.

neologist wrote:

I realize that not everyone can easily understand this. But it is one of the most important concepts in the bible.

Maybe people have a difficult time understanding that because it's complete nonsense. Adam and Eve most assuredly had no conscience before tasting of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Conscience, after all, is nothing more than the knowledge of right and wrong, and A&E didn't have that until the whole apple thing. To say, then, that they didn't know good from bad but that they did have a conscience is simply absurd. It's saying that they had a conscience even though they didn't have a conscience.

neologist wrote:

I realize that not everyone can easily understand this. But it is one of the most important concepts in the bible.

Maybe people have a difficult time understanding that because it's complete nonsense. Adam and Eve most assuredly had no conscience before tasting of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Conscience, after all, is nothing more than the knowledge of right and wrong, and A&E didn't have that until the whole apple thing. To say, then, that they didn't know good from bad but that they did have a conscience is simply absurd. It's saying that they had a conscience even though they didn't have a conscience.

agrote wrote:

So Christians face a dilemma. They can be good Christians, and act as their religion tells them to, but then the 'good deeds' they perform will be acts of moral fetishism, rather than genuine good deeds such as feeding the hungry because they are hungry (and not just because the Bible says to).

I don't understand this. If the Bible commands Christians, in general, to do good deeds (say, e.g., helping the homeless), and a certain Christian, acting solely upon that command, does a good deed, how is that not a "genuine" good deed?
Is it because the Christian, all other things being equal, would prefer not to perform the good deed? If that's the case, then my next question would be: so what? I don't see how the good deed performed de re (for its own sake) is substantively different from the good deed performed de dicto, so long as the deed is not performed for bad motives.

For instance, suppose Driver is commanded by the state to obey the traffic laws. Driver, however, all other things being equal, would prefer not to stop at the intersection when the light turns red. Yet he does, solely because he does not want to break the law. Can we thus consider Driver to be law-abiding? I think the answer has to be "yes."

In the same way, if Christian gives a dollar to a beggar because he believes that God would command him to give that dollar to that beggar, then I see no reason to think that he is being anything other than a good Christian by giving the dollar.

There's no dilemma here. Christians who obey the mandatory commands of their religion are, by definition, "good" Christians. If Christianity commands its followers to perform good deeds, then obedience to that command is adherance to the faith, which would seem to me to be the sole criterion on which one is judged to be a "good" Christian or not.

. . . ill interject my 2 cents. what if the bible said stabbing a homeless man in the face was a good deed?

You could say that every christian can use common sense to determine what is right and wrong on their own, but then the fact stands why have the bible you know?

either way, it ends up bad. Crusades anyone? Spanish inquisition anybody? case closed, religion is dumb.

But it says what it says.

neologist wrote:

But it says what it says.

The problem which Joe and Mequite and i have is not with what the story says--it is with what you claim it says.

I find it incredible that you are unable to discern what is being told.

Adam and Eve had only one choice to make regarding morality: Accept the moral sense they were created with or go it on their own.

You don't have to believe the story. You may call it a fairy tale. But it says what it says.

neologist wrote:

I find it incredible that you are unable to discern what is being told.

Adam and Eve had only one choice to make regarding morality: Accept the moral sense they were created with or go it on their own.

You don't have to believe the story. You may call it a fairy tale. But it says what it says.

Yes, it says what it says. It also doesn't say what it doesn't say. And it doesn't say that A&E had a moral sense they were created with. In fact, it says just the opposite.

Really?

Explain, then, how they would have behaved in a moral sense if they had never eaten the fruit?

neologist wrote:

Really?

Explain, then, how they would have behaved in a moral sense if they had never eaten the fruit?

Easy. They wouldn't have.

They wouldn't have behaved in a moral sense?

They wouldn't have behaved?

Stunning example of rhetorical wisdom.

Excellent dodge of the only reasonable answer which is they would have been guided by some innate moral direction.

Can you spell C - O - N - S - C - I - E -N - C - E ?

neologist wrote:

They wouldn't have behaved in a moral sense?

They wouldn't have behaved?

Stunning example of rhetorical wisdom.

What makes you think they would have behaved in a moral fashion? If they did not know right from wrong, how exactly could they have behaved morally?

neologist wrote:

Excellent dodge of the only reasonable answer which is they would have been guided by some innate moral direction.

No, that's not reasonable at all, and it is certainly not supported by the Genesis account.

neologist wrote:

Can you spell C - O - N - S - C - I - E -N - C - E ?

Give it up. You don't do condescension very well.

Joe is not dodging--but you sure are dancing.

There is absolutely no support in the text of Genesis for the claims you are making. In fact, the text inferentially contradicts you.

Still waiting for someone to tell me what sort of moral guidance Adam and Eve would have arrived at had they not eaten the fruit.

If Joe's answer of 'they wouldn't have' is not dodging. What is it?

I know the idea of a perfect conscience is anathema to many.

Sorry about that.

Remember, he was supposedly perfect.
Surely that may be inferred from the text.

neologist wrote:

Sorry about that.

No you're not--you are intentionally taking a snotty attitude because you're getting beat up when you attempt to logically support a claim for which there is no evidence in the text.