Amazon.com Widgets

To say we inherit perfect morality because of a magical apple and you need religion to know right from wrong is to contradict yourself.

Asked by: steffon66
  • If we inherit the knowledge of good and evil genetically then we need no moral teaching because we already know right from wrong

    Just goes to prove how insane and ridiculous religion is. To say you need to learn what a religion teaches to know right from wrong when you also say we inherit the knowledge of good and evil genetically is definitely contradicting yourself because if we inherit it genetically we already know it and teaching a contradictory virtue would only screw that up. So if christians believe in the story of adam and eve which they do why would they want to change morality and teach it?

  • Holy Crow, just wait a minute...

    A "magical apple"? Who says it's an apple?

    And who says - even going with the biblical story - that man got "perfect morality" from Eve & Adam chowing down on the fruit? As far as I know, their lives got pretty well messed up, afterwards, and that's about it. Were they really supposed to have gotten "perfect knowledge," there?

    I would not say that religion is "insane and ridiculous." A lot of people get comfort and benefit from their religion. And, we *all* make unprovable assumptions, at a very basic level.

    I'm aware of the negative side of religion too; on individual and group levels I often see the bad effects there. In the end, as far as morality, it's all the same thing - as individuals and as groups we have opinions, whether or not we say they are from our religion or anything else.

  • Well, obviously, the apple contained a mutagen.

    The apple was back when God took an active role in running things, so He probably gave it a ton of goodies such as the ability to modify genetics. Also, good and evil and right and wrong are very subjective things. I, for one, use the system Catholicism provides because it works, has worked, and, presumably, will continue to work into the foreseeable future, because it is the culmination of efforts to find a workable system, and as stated before, it works.
    However, you're taking an extended metaphor and treating it as though it were literal. Please, refrain from doing this in the future.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Stefy says2015-07-17T19:11:59.130
Do you have any idea what religions believe at all and are you aware that every religion sees morality in a very different way?
steffon66 says2015-07-17T19:15:29.560
I dont know what you mean what religions believe at all though i think you mean what religions believe that to which i would say christianity. And yes im aware that every religion sees morality in a very different way. Are you aware that they contradict each other meaning most of them have to be false while none are more profound than any other like you would expect gods religion to be as all the false ones had to be created by men?
steffon66 says2015-07-17T19:15:58.777
Not seeing your point
Stefy says2015-07-17T20:22:00.480
I am aware that religion has contradictions. Believe me im perfectly clear on that and its something we agree on. However the way you have phrased Christian belief about morality is ridiculous and inaccurately misleading. You'd do better to make your point, which again im not against your point, by analyzing the actual theology and the different ways it can be interpreted rather than describing the view in such a grossly oversimplified way.
You take the "you need religion to know write from wrong part" from fundementalists as it is literally not even in the bible, in fact there is a verse in Romans that literally says you can be perfectly moral, if not even more moral, without religion.
The part about "inheriting perfect morality from a magic apple" is not even remotely accurate. The point of Genesis is that perfect morality was lost. Again, the substance of your point is actually valuable criticism, but I don't think it comes from accurate and unbias analysis.

And what I meant by seeing religions seeing morality in different ways is that you're trying to make a point about religion by citing one theology.
steffon66 says2015-07-17T20:29:29.767
I dont care how theologyns interpret it. I used the interpretations i have gotten from almost every church i have been to which includes thousands of churches in 15 different states. Unlike most people i seach high and low for knowledge of right and wrong and dont just blindly accept the morality any church teaches. Most christians think the adam and eve story is literally true. Then they say we need to go to their church and learn right from wrong when they also believe we inherit the knowledge of good and evil from our ancesors who ate from a magical tree. So maybe you need to learn more about the christian faith.
Stefy says2015-07-17T20:41:19.530
I don't take my right and wrong from their either so please stop acting superior.
Also if you don't care about the accurate, theological interpretation than you don't care about analyzing the actual religion or the facts about it. And that is wrong.

If your point is to attack everyday American fundamentalist Christians who do believe all that stuff then ok. But its still bias and wrong to insert your views into the question you ask.
I did learn about the Christian faith. You're not talking about any accurate interpretation of the Christian faith, you're talking how American fundementalists with a chip on their shoulder wrongly interpret facts about the Christian faith to justify their bigotry. And that is perfectly awesome to criticize.

And im not one to defend the Christian faith at every turn, but if your going to criticize, criticize honestly.
Stefy says2015-07-17T20:42:15.427
The idea of religion being the only tool to learn right from wrong is not the Christian faith at all, and the fundementalists who think that are going against it and getting their facts about the Bible wrong.
steffon66 says2015-07-17T23:32:44.307
How am i acting superior to you? What did i say that makes me seem like i think im superior to you. I dont believe in free will so i dont believe i am superior to anyone nor anyone to me. Also who says i dont care about the theological interpretation? I do care about that as well and find it to be ridiculous as well but its irrelevant to my point right now so why dont you read the topic to remind yourself about what we are talking about. Im not downing the religion right now im talking about a common interpretation that is clearly contradictory. As far as criticizing honestly. Why dont you read this over and over until you understand the misunderstandings you have about my argument that i am pointing out. The majority of christians ive met have all been asked a series of questions. Two of those questions are "did the story of adam and eve really take place and is that why we know right from wrong" and "do you need religion to have virtues in a society".
Stefy says2015-07-18T01:20:03.317
Yes. How many times do I have to say that you're right about how the theology (which didn't say was good either, but certainly a little better and much different) is commonly interpreted? Because you are. But it is important also to highlight that that is the common viewpoint, but not the accurate one. This is how misinformation spreads.
My point was that you inserted your own answer into the question. If you want to know if people think the popular fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity is contradictory then ask if it directly, don't lead people in the direction you want them to go in if you really do want a fair and open dialogue and don't just want to be right.

As for the superiority thing; "Unlike most people i search high and low for knowledge of right and wrong" For one thing, nobody has a perfect moral compass. For another more important thing, people, even people who are indoctrinated by fundamentalism do more introspection than you might think. Its hard to escaped the thinking of a culture you were practically drowned in, and the judgement an reaction from the social circle around you can be very intense and frightening. You're not unlike most people, you're just lucky. So am I and everyone else who isn't stuck in a situation where theyre literally scared of thinking for themselves.
steffon66 says2015-07-18T04:09:13.210
Your argument against me is that i am too positive or some crap. Like i insert and answer into the question. I had to ask it like that so they can understand the contradiction but if you think people are so stupid that they will agree because i inserted and answer into my question then you must think people are dumber than i am. The reality is they can disagree when they read it just as well as they can when they answer it. And yes im aware that they do retrospect but they dont understand that we contradict them and cant both be right about morality. They say whats objectively right changes with time though they have never said what changed that made right and wrong different. Hows that for theology? Nothing has changed that made slavery change morally. Right is right even if no one is doing it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. Morality changes because its subjective and we slowly evolve one precept at a time but most dont question it all. They name the circumstances that changed objective morality yet they insist that all morality is objective and that the majority of people have always known right from wrong. If we knew right from wrong there would be far less controversy and morality wouldnt change much. And yes i think my view is superior to many but i didnt earn that as i dont have free will and had no choice but to think and to learn what i now know. So its not peoples fault that their moralities suck. They blindly follow anyone who will lead them. That i have a big problem with and people like me need to speak out and end that.
Stefy says2015-07-18T10:36:43.810
"People like me.." Like what? You're being arrogant I'm sorry. You can think you have the superior view without acting like you're a superior person. If you think you have the right beliefs about morality, which I believe that you do (stop explaining it to me i know what morality) then you can be a little modest about it and not act like you're better than everyone else. If you act this way people aren't going to listen to your view they're going to go on the defensive and its going to shut down any beneficial conversation that ay have happened.
And yes the question is asked in the wrong way for two reasons. One I said before. You cant insert your viewpoint into any good, open ended question. If you do that it narrows the question because you assume things in the question that might not necessarily be the case. You wouldn't try to persuade people in the question unless you were afraid they might actually think for themselves and disagree with you. So why not ask a good, objective questions. Plus, if youre only using one example of one contradiction of fundamentalism, then in narrows what is discussed in the following debate. It seems like you only want to discuss that and not the concept. Again, I agree with what youre trying to say but I would've opened the conversation differently, by asking if people thought there were contradictions and then we dis uss them. I don't need to point out the ones I think are there while I ask the question it creates a bias in the results you get.
Oh its not their fault their moralities suck. Ok, well, continue having zero empathy for others or respect for their experiences and cultures and see how far you get persuading anyone to see your point of view.