Christianity is a poor source of moral guidance

My proposition is that the story only makes sense if Adam and Eve were created with a perfect moral sense and the eating of the fruit represented their desire to overrule that moral sense, thereby deciding for themselves what was good and what was bad.

So far, most of the contributors to this thread have contended that Adam and Eve were morally naive and easily duped in some sort of sucker arrangement. I agree that, if the bible is not the inerrant word of God, that could certainly be the case. However, that is not what the story relates.

One of the main reasons I continue in my contention is that, without Satan's interference, Adam and Eve would have eventually come upon some situation requiring a moral decision. Taken to that point, the contention that the first humans had no sense of moral direction becomes patently ridiculous.

My proposition is that the story only makes sense if Adam and Eve were created with a perfect moral sense and the eating of the fruit represented their desire to overrule that moral sense, thereby deciding for themselves what was good and what was bad.

So far, most of the contributors to this thread have contended that Adam and Eve were morally naive and easily duped in some sort of sucker arrangement. I agree that, if the bible is not the inerrant word of God, that could certainly be the case. However, that is not what the story relates.

One of the main reasons I continue in my contention is that, without Satan's interference, Adam and Eve would have eventually come upon some situation requiring a moral decision. Taken to that point, the contention that the first humans had no sense of moral direction becomes patently ridiculous.

. . . A&E would never have encountered a situation that required a moral decision so long as they had no knowledge of good and evil.

. . . Now you're lying outright. In the first place, because those who are arguing against you are using the actual text of the scripture to point out, not that these jokers were "morally naive," but that they were completely amoral. . .

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:

Magical properties seems reasonable to describe a tree that produced fruit which when eaten would allow one to be as gods and know good and evil. Did you have an alternative to offer?

Since it represented a choice, it could have been a door they were told not to open, a path not to take, etc.

That is precisely my point neo. Had the author merely meant it to represent a choice it could have anything. In the Eden story however, the forbidden object was a fruit that had magical powers, very specific magical powers that relate directly to the point. Until they ate the fruit they did not know right from wrong. You keep breezing past that very significant part of the story as though it did not exist.

You keep ignoring the question of how they would have made moral decisions if they had not ieaten the fruit.

I say they had an intuitive sense of God's moral standards. The act of eating the fruit was a rejection of those standards.

I may not have proved the proposition, but none of the posters in this thread have disproved it either.

Well Duh . . . of course i agree--"not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral" could not be a better description of someone without the knowledge of good and evil. I frankly am amazed that you believe you have an argument to make.

How would the human race have dealt with a situation presenting a type of moral choice we often find in our everyday life?

Example: One individual sees an object belonging to another and desires it for himself?

How would the human race have dealt with a situation presenting a type of moral choice we often find in our everyday life?

Example: One individual sees an object belonging to another and desires it for himself?

neologist wrote:

How would the human race have dealt with a situation presenting a type of moral choice we often find in our everyday life?

Example: One individual sees an object belonging to another and desires it for himself?

In the first place this is disingenuous because the Genesis story concerns itself not with the human race, but with two specified individuals. But leaving that aside, why should anyone who has no knowledge of good and evil consider it wrong to take what they desire, whether or not it were alleged to be the "property" of someone else?

I kind or sorta thought the Genesis story more or less was a kind of explanation of why we have war and crime and sickness and death. But, leaving that aside, are you saying the bible account pictures a God who created man to be no different than animals?

neologist wrote:

I kind or sorta thought the Genesis story more or less was a kind of explanation of why we have war and crime and sickness and death. But, leaving that aside, are you saying the bible account pictures a God who created man to be no different than animals?

I think they are trying to tell you that your references to Genesis should take the story as it really is, and not the assumptions and parables you have made concerning it.

joefromchicago wrote:

. . . A&E would never have encountered a situation that required a moral decision so long as they had no knowledge of good and evil.

Do you really believe that?

a God who created man to be no different than animals?

Great closing argument Joe. I expect an acquittal. What will neo do when he can no longer blame Adam and Eve for all of jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric (thanks Frank) behavior of the OT god?

Bingo . . . the Jesuits did not labor in vain.