To All the Women I Love and Admire...

To all the women I love and admire...

I'm so sorry that it's looking like this is not the year we'll get a president. We had so many great candidates who had no penii. We really SHOULD have a female running to beat Trump, this WAS the year and I'm sorry it's looking like it's looking like it's not turning out that way. They clearly were the better candidates.

In honor of what should have been, I'm re-posting a poem about resistance, along with some of my art of strong women.

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

Rise up wild daughter of the woods

dance and romp

struggle and scream

kick and punch

Persist. Resist. Insist. Consist

of and within your

own sweet and glorious dragon Self.

Kick at the stones and 

split the sky into 

one thousand shards of color 

bellow in rage

fight

spin

sing.

Or don't. 

Just rest and relax or do 

whatever

it is your own unchained soul wants.

It IS your life. 
Live it by your rules. 

This poet stands with you and your choices.

(Not that you need my approval.)

Understanding Morality

Craig has been asking questions at his blog (and at mine) about what grounds would we have for choosing some behaviors as immoral and others as moral. I've suggested the common idea of Do No Harm to Innocents/The Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you...") which is found in all the major world religions in some form or the other, and which many if not most non-religious folks can affirm, as well.

Craig has appeared to not find my reasoning (our reasoning, those of us who agree with this common sense measure) to be appealing and he points to the many real flaws with it. Most of these flaws come down to people not fully recognizing/acknowledging when they are doing harm to others. Although, he has yet to offer what he'd prefer to see in the place of the appeal to the GR/Do No Harm approach. 

Craig stated, on his blog...

"I do love how you’ve staked your entire moral code on a rule..." 

It's a rule with straightforward, understandable reasoning behind it. What is immoral? That which causes harm. That which we wouldn't want someone else to do to us. 

What's wrong with the appeal to this reasoned approach to morality?

This is a reasoned position. People can understand it. It's rational and overtly obvious to all people, regardless of background or culture. 

Why should I not do that action which causes harm to innocent people? Because it causes harm to innocent people, and we wouldn't want someone to do this to us if we were innocent. It's exceedingly reasonable. 

Do you disagree? 

The problem with appeals to a particular religion or a particular God is that not everyone agrees that a given God exists or not everyone agrees with a particular tenets of a given religion. 

"Because my religion says..." is a very limiting way to try to define morality. That's fine for the 30% of the world that agrees with the particular tenets of your particular version of your particular religion, but it doesn't fit everyone, nor does the appeal have much of a way to unify everyone.

Additionally, you have humans (traditionally throughout most of history, powerful men) deciding, "This is what I think God calls moral..." and humans are famously oftentimes mistaken about what the gods believe. 

After all, of the dozens of other gods and religions in the world, most of us  no doubt don't place any credence in what these other religions teach to be moral, do we? We can just agree that OUR God's rules/teachings are right... and even then, "we" in "our" group regularly disagree with one another on many rules even within our group.

On what rationed consistent basis would we choose one religious group (or, some subsets of one religious group, since religions often don't agree with each other even within one religion) to be the authorities on what is and isn't moral?

Appeals to one particular subset of one particular religion is very limiting and would perforce exclude many others (as opposed to help us find common ground). Appeals to a Golden Rule/Do No Harm to Innocents rule is able to unite us and, generally speaking, we can agree upon it, even if imperfectly and we can appeal to it in areas where we disagree.

Appealing to "my group's interpretation of our group's understanding of our group's sacred text" holds little hope of pulling us together in common ground.

Where am I mistaken?

What benefit is there to appeals to one particular faith tradition's sacred text as a rulings book (especially when so much of that text might be opposed to using the book as a rulings book, as in the case of the bible)? I'm not seeing it.

One of Craig's apparent gripes about appeals to the GR/Do No Harm is that we won't always agree on some actions... that people won't live it out perfectly, that it's not objectively provable. And it's true. Humans DO have a history of not living out the GR and of finding reasons to, for instance, own slaves or oppress women or gay folk or others. It IS an imperfect measure of how to live morally.

But two things:

1. It's really not that hard to grasp. We humans get that we wouldn't want someone to rape us or our loved ones, to take our stuff from us, to assault us, to abuse or oppress us... these harms are obvious to most people and appeals to the GR/Do No Harm are a way of saying, "Hey, we shouldn't do this!" and most of us understand why on nearly all the huge harmful actions. Yes, Christians in the past and others today have found a way of saying, "...but we CAN own slaves because..." and finding a reason that allows them to justify that sort of oppression/harm. But that's a human falling prey to hypocrisy problem, not a problem with the measure. 

After all, Christians in recent history were able to appeal to their religion's sacred text and traditions to justify oppressing slaves and women and others, so it's a problem with either method. Christians today in parts of the world (along with Muslims) are using their religious texts and traditions to jail and cause harm to gay folk today.

1a. Harm IS measurable. If someone rapes, assaults, kills, steals from, oppresses another, we can see and quantify the harm being done. Sure, when it gets down to finer details, there's more room for disagreement (are coal companies polluting streams - a toxic negative - to generate power that we rely upon - a reasonable positive - a net moral positive or net harm? ...for instance.), but in broad strokes, it's something most of humanity can generally agree upon, even if imperfectly.

2. What's the alternative? One group's particular opinions about what God (or gods) think is moral? Another, more limited, measure that is not objectively provable?

No thanks.

Remove Trump, the Sexual Predator

Introduction: This is not new news, nor is it terribly organized, but it's a list of many of the reasons to recognize that the reality is that Trump is most likely a deviant sexual predator...

According to polls, a majority of US citizens (and a large majority of US women) believe that Trump has likely sexually assaulted women... we believe the women who've made allegations against Trump more than we believe Trump. For those who support Trump generally, they tend to NOT believe the allegations, again, according to polls.

"58% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the allegations of sexual misconduct made by several women against Trump

Women (63%) are more likely than men (53%) to believe the allegations of sexual misconduct made against Trump.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats and
55% of voters not affiliated with either major party believe the women’s allegations,
compared to just 34% of Republicans."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/december_2017/most_call_for_trump_s_resignation_if_sex_allegations_are_true

And let me be clear: We who believe Trump likely has sexually assaulted women (and is likely a sexual predator) are NOT saying that he should be arrested and sent to jail because we believe he's a predator, regardless of any conviction. We still support the criminal process. But, there's a difference between thinking there's not sufficient evidence to bring a conviction versus believing he's trustworthy around women. Sometimes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but more than enough to be dubious and think, "I'm going to leave teen-aged girls alone with this man... and I do not trust him to run the country..." We don't have to have a conviction to not trust and find someone unfit.

"If multiple people have accused an elected official of sexual harassment or sexual assault,
66 percent of Americans say that official should resign,
while 24 percent say the official should not resign."

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2505

And I should be clear that I don't think that reasonable doubt should just pop up based on very little evidence.

But we don't have "very little" evidence about Trump's sexual predatory nature.

We have ~24 women who have accused him of sexual assault/rape/sexual misconduct.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-running-list-of-the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-misconduct_n_57ffae1fe4b0162c043a7212?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHv9JgQ93EOhyuS-5G_vrjT4lnC07MDX3A30P9IMk8NfBEiSrgiJCHd0ST9CHDYZ_W-dJSvGmby-5Kgo_5O292GY7JLPGgyxNTJ9VTP6dj0-d7S6wn0FwksN5uh5frz4OQ4-xrVCz03aWB-sCIBoSoVSuORdgM2iFHlhuzbHk4ZF

We have a president who presents as having narcissistic behaviors and the data that shows that narcissistic males are more likely to engage in sexual assault/rape.

https://www.mic.com/articles/139521/male-narcissists-are-more-likely-to-commit-sexual-assault-says-study

We have a president who is ON TAPE laughing about how he "moves on women" without waiting for permission and that he can "grab them by the [crotch]" and get away with it because of his power and position.

We have a president who went on radio and laughed and boasted about how he could use his power, wealth and position to force his way into a beauty pageant and ogle teen-aged girls getting dressed.

We have a president who has a history of speaking abusively towards women in the most vulgar, rape-y, misogynistic and oppressive terms.

We have the data that shows that such a sense of entitlement and privilege and power is a sign of a sexual predator.

https://www.france24.com/en/20191117-ladies-and-the-trump-the-making-of-a-sexual-predator-1

Here are "four thinking patterns" of sexual predators...

"Four thinking patterns figure prominently in the commission of sexual offenses in the workplace.

The pursuit of power and control.  A critical part of the perpetrator’s self-image is being able to dominate others.  He proceeds to do this as he pursues whomever he finds attractive.

A sense of uniqueness. Everyone is unique – physically, psychologically, and experientially. But the person who engages in sexual harassment, assault, or rape considers himself one of a kind.  Part of this self-perception is his certainty that he is irresistible to women, the answer to every woman’s desires.  When it comes to right and wrong, he makes his own rules.

Deception. These individuals are often extremely intelligent, charismatic, and talented.  Even people who know them well cannot conceive that they are even capable of exploiting others sexually. Such predators are masters of deceit.

An ability to compartmentalize and shut off fear of consequences. Perpetrators of sexual harassment, assault, and rape know right from wrong.  They are fully aware of the potential consequences of being apprehended.  They have an uncanny ability to ignore them long enough to do what they want, all the while maintaining a sense of invincibility. They eliminate considerations of conscience behaving as they please without regard to emotional, physical, or other damage they might inflict. When they are unmasked, their chief regret is getting caught with little or no remorse for the victim.  Instead, they regard themselves as victims because of the unpalatable consequences they must face."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201712/the-thinking-processes-sexual-predators

We can read this and see that these are characteristics of Trump (with the exception of being "extremely intelligent," something he gives no indication of being.)

In short, we have a huge amount of testimony, including the president's own words, which lead us inescapably to the conclusion that Trump is almost certainly a sexual predator, and an unrepentant one.

It is for this reason that over half the nation recognizes that, whatever you may think of his policies, he is fundamentally unfit for office. We've put up with this reality for over three years and it is sickening to people from across the political spectrum and around the world.

If you are someone who has been saying to yourself, "Well, he's never been CONVICTED of sexual assault... therefore, we MUST ASSUME he is innocent..." no, we do not have to force ourselves to ignore all these warning signs. Trump is a narcissistic, damaged human being who is almost certainly a sexual predator. We have no reason to assume that two dozen (plus??) women are making up these claims, made independently across several decades. This should make him unfit for office, period. There doesn't have to be any further discussion, he IS unfit for office. We cannot abide having sexual predators in office, even if they have policies you like.

Read these articles. Listen to expert testimony about sexual predators/rapists/men who sexually assault women. Trump is a stereotypical rapist/sexual predator type of person. Listen to the women who've accused him. Listen to his own vulgar, disgusting, perverted, misogynistic words.

It's time, US. It's time conservatives. Listen to your own preachers (like ultra-conservative Reverend Al Mohler, who has said that white evangelicals are destroying their reputation by supporting this sexual predator). This isn't something I'm making up as a liberal. It's not fake news. It's just the likely reality that Trump is a sexual predator who has managed to abuse women for years and get away with it only because of his wealth and privilege, which only makes it more perverse and disgusting.

Let's end the reign of this predator, decisively, conclusively. Vote him out for this reason, if nothing else.  

Listen to the Sunset

I watched the deer
watching me in the field

we were watching each other

and after a while

the mother deer said to me

"Watch the sky

listen to the sunset"
and they quit watching me

and turned their backs to me

and so I watched the sky and

I listened

Hearing nothing
I climbed up the hillside

to watch the sky a little longer

and I listened a little more closely

Soon, the sky turned 
from blue to yellow

to amber to gold

and then ever-darkening

shades of bronze

which finally gave over

to a deep, soft violet

I'm not sure if I ever heard
anything

and maybe that was the point

The Disinformation President

The author of this The Atlantic article, McKay Coppins, is talking on NPR right now. Please, if you're conservative or progressive or somewhere in between, read this article. Trump is using strategies of disinformation that undermine the idea of facts and truth and ultimately, a free republic. Please read this article.

"The president’s reelection campaign was then in the midst of a multimillion-dollar ad blitz aimed at shaping Americans’ understanding of the recently launched impeachment proceedings. 

Thousands of micro-targeted ads had flooded the internet, portraying Trump as a heroic reformer cracking down on foreign corruption while Democrats plotted a coup. That this narrative bore little resemblance to reality seemed only to accelerate its spread. 

Right-wing websites amplified every claim. Pro-Trump forums teemed with conspiracy theories. An alternate information ecosystem was taking shape around the biggest news story in the country, and I wanted to see it from the inside."

Don't Be Deceived

Seriously, don't be deceived, don't be an idiot, don't buy a con from an inept con man and don't be part of the problem of giving a single bit of support to this man. He and his followers are, whether on purpose or not, part of the greatest threat our nation has faced since probably the Cold War. What is amazing to so many of us - no doubt, at least half the nation and most of the world - is why so very many people (~30-40% of the nation??) are buying into a con that is so obviously a con.

Make no mistake: Trump is a moron, he is not an intelligent man. This is something that is measurable, observable. He speaks like a very unintelligent person. But he is quite a genius when it comes to conning a certain subset of people... people who buy into ridiculously stupid misinformation when it plays into their fears and prejudices/biases (and here, I don't mean racial prejudices - although that certainly is part of it for some subset of that subset), but their cultural biases and prejudices. But how can SO many people be fooled by such a buffoon who, in addition to being a buffoon, is a generally awful human being?

Read the article. Open your eyes. Don't be deceived.

No comments are necessary, I'm not looking for conversation, just pointing to something that should be obvious.

No Time for Nonsense

She came ashore

from the wild ocean

glistening with sea salt

"She looks so pretty,"

they all said

"her outfit is just so cute!"

And they missed the point entirely

Cute? Pretty?

She is an ocean warrior

a fierce guardian of life and the briny deep

she is half-wild and fearless

determined

bad-ass

bruised-knuckled

scarred and indomitable

she has written books in blood

and taught classes in caves

she has mentored students

and saved lives

she has plunged her feet

thigh deep into muck and mire

and dug into the bottom of the ocean

with a shovel and her bare hands

She is a sweat-stained stone bearer 

and a work-hardened master of her own destiny

she has wrestled with tentacles and grabbers

and not all of them in the wildern waters

She is strong and storied

undaunted and shark-dangerous

bold

wise

savage

strange

barbaric

heavy with rage and rebellion

and dangerous as a rip tide

and so

when she swims to shore

from months of world-changing work

don't you dare 

don't you DARE

lead with

"she looks pretty"

and

"what a cute outfit"

She is a spear bearer 

with no time for nonsense

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule: Survival of the Smartest

New Paths

As the sun set gold on the first day
of the new year
he climbed to the mountaintop
seeking a place
as thin as the shell of a bird's egg
where he could pray to the
small hobgoblins and great minds
of the heroes of inconsistency -
those trail-less wanderers blazing
New Paths
that great cloud of witnesses

and he waited and
held court in hushed reverence and
prayed in tongues of wood and spirit

The wild birds were the first to show
singing the most ancient psalms
Then, Uncle Ralph rose from the grave
and began drumming
thum thum thum
on the side of a hollow log
a song of unsettled hope
Sister Rachel joined in song
an untiring song of beauty
and mystery
The Healer, King
rose up, too,
and preached a sermon,
saying that darkness can't drive out darkness
and then the sun set
and we all held hands
and prayed onward into the night,
confident that the next day would come
and that
in the meantime
we had each other.

Keeping God in a Box... As If!

Stan, from the Winging It blog, recently offered opinions about the great Leonard Cohen hymn, "Hallelujah." Stan says...

...Hallelujah, as it turns out, is not a Christmas song. It's not even Christian. The song starts out talking about some "secret chord" that David could play to please the Lord. He didn't. The song says David was baffled. He wasn't. The song focuses on the adultery including when Bathsheba apparently tied him to a kitchen chair and cut his hair. She didn't. The song rambles on about love. it looks good, but

           Love is not a victory march
           it's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

In the end, what do we learn about Leonard Cohen's religious views?

Well, maybe there's a God above
But all I've ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew ya
It's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

This is what passes, even among Christians, as a sweet Christmas song. Clearly it's not.

As always, this post is not about Stan or what he wrote specifically. He just offers a glimpse into the evangelical conservative trend of them deciding what is and isn't Christian, as if they are the guardians of and final arbiters on Christianity.

Now, to be clear, Cohen was a Jewish man who embraced aspects of Buddhism. So, I would imagine that Cohen himself didn't write it with the intention of the song being a "christian song." But here's my point: Poetry and songs and art in general, when it's put out there, means what it means to the one who is appreciating it.

Cohen's beautiful and wonderful song is a journey of self exploration and struggle and failure, of love and loss and perhaps some redemption. It's gritty and tough and real-world. It's hard and it's glorious. It's humanity and spirituality, both, seems to me.

And so, my point is, why would anyone consider this definitively NOT a "Christian song..."? What is it in some folks who think they need to make a ruling and put a label on aspects of religion and the world, to try to box up their religion and their god away from "the secular..."? Do they feel they need to protect their god? I tend to think God can take care of God's Self and if a song is meaningful to you in some way, then it is meaningful to you in some way, and no one can take that away from you.

And if a song brings you closer to God or Jesus in some way, then that's what it does and no one needs to tell you that the song doesn't belong to "Christianity," as if they are the arbiters of Christianity. Contrariwise, if a song doesn't appeal to you and your religion, you don't need to incorporate it into your religion or practices. Just don't try to decide for others what box their god should be kept in.

Any God worth their salt would likely refuse to be boxed in.

Seems to me.

Now, enjoy the beautiful Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, secular, spiritual words of St Leonard...

I did my best, it wasn’t much
I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch
I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I’ll stand before the lord of song
With nothing on my tongue but hallelujah

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah...

Even though it all went wrong, I'll stand before the lord of song with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah.

Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Blessed Holiday Season, all.

I See Good People

Good: (MW) of a favorable character or tendency: virtuous, right, commendable: Kind, benevolent

(Free Dictionary): that which is morally right; righteousness.

Good person: (MW) an honest, helpful, or morally good person

(Free Dictionary): a person who is good to other people

Craig, at another blog, has repeatedly taken issue with my posts on Good People. He also  refuses to define how he's using the word Good and finds my answers about good people to "mean both everything and nothing..." but clearly, my definition/descriptions don't do that.

Someone who kills, lies and cheats is not a good person.

Someone who is kind, helpful, patient, loving, gracious IS a good person.

We can't say objectively "this person is good and that person is bad" because Good is subjective. 

Nonetheless, it's just not that difficult to recognize good behavior or to say, "That is a good person." 

It's not that difficult for most of us to be able to say that. Even Marshal and Craig (both of whom are objecting to me saying that there are good people) appear to concede that there are good people. (Craig: "I know people who, by my subjective standards, I would consider to be good.")

Yes, it's just not that difficult to recognize good behavior or to say, "That is a good person." 

I know a person (actually, I know several people for whom the following description fits...) who...

works every day helping homeless people on their job (or teaching children, or nursing...);

raised and loved wonderful children;

taught and cared for and mentored other people's children; 

live in small circles so that they're limiting the amount of pollution they produce; 

are honest and patient with people, even stubborn or obnoxious people; 

pick up litter when they spot it on the sidewalk;

don't litter themselves;

do kind things for and with poor people, for immigrants, for oppressed Muslims;

On the other hand,

Perhaps their worst habit is watching too much TV (no small thing, that!); 

Their diet could be better;

They DO lose patience with obnoxious people some times;

They do fail to help some people some times (when they're tired from helping people all day, for instance);

They have gossiped;

They stole a pencil when they were a child (I don't really know this, just acknowledging that they probably have done things of that nature);

Of course, they have never killed, beaten, stolen from people, sexually harassed anyone, etc. No "big" crimes/wrong-doing.

In short, they are generally genuinely good people. NOT perfect people, but no one has ever said one must be perfect to be good and that's just not a rational description.

Indeed, those who would insist that you must be perfect to be counted Good would be a rather grace-less person. A pharisee, perhaps.

Yes, I DO know good people. Genuinely good people. Beyond that, I am close enough to them to know that they have no hidden secret murders or assaults they've taken part in.

They are not perfect, but by any reasonable measure, they are good.

Just because there is no objective measure to definitively say, "THEY ARE OBJECTIVELY GOOD PEOPLE," we can easily note and say, "They are, by reasonable measures, very good people."

I know such people. I go to church and work with a large number of them.

Calvinists and skeptics who say otherwise are just not dealing with reality and, most likely, they are choosing to define Good in some non-standard and irrational manner.

Good: of a favorable character or tendency: virtuous, right, commendable: Kind, benevolent

When I say Good people, I just mean "people of a favorable character or tendency: virtuous, right, commendable: Kind, benevolent." And yes, they exist. No matter what the Pharisees may say.

Swirl

I was captured today

in a gentle storm of leaping leaves

falling, showering, drizzling

around and upon and throughout me

Enveloping me like grace

like love

like dirt,

like sky
like I don't know who and
I don't know why

like a great symphony

swelling, flowing, growing

in deep crimson harmony

and with each spin

each rotation of autumnal bliss

I was delivered,

washed clean

baptised with a hickory kiss

spun gold salvation in a

sweet soaring swirl

landing on my head

on my shoulder and legs,

It made me twist, it made me twirl

right along with that

riotous laugh of leaves

and I danced holy ghost joy

on the sidewalk and all down the

wide-eyed street

"Glory Hallelujah!"

I raised my voice on high

I raised my hands

I raised my song

I raised my Self to fly

I was captured, today,

brainwashed and then set free

free to let go and live and leap

and die like those

soaring, spinning, gracious, grinning

falling-down-on-my-knees-in-prayer

leaves.

Hallelujah. Amen.

Does Our Nature Determine Our Actions?

Craig over at another blog recently posted some questions in my general direction and I've answered them. I thought it might be instructive to the previous posts to re-post those answers here. He asked questions about the idea of what our human nature is like.

Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?

Both. We are who we are. I may be, by nature, a naturally lazy or ungrateful or ungenerous person... or at least tend towards those attitudes. However, if I - in spite of what I may think my nature is - start being a harder worker, or more grateful towards others or more generous... then I become a hard working, grateful and generous person. IF I am working hard, then whatEVER my "nature" might be, I AM a hard worker and not lazy. If I decide that it's important to give and start giving to good causes (in time and money), then i AM a generous person. So, ultimately, our actions determine our nature, but I'd say it's some of both.

And I'd state that based on all the evidence we see. Further, there is research that says that, even if we don't think of ourselves as generous (for instance), if we start giving, we develop more of a giving nature.

It's like that old parable: There are two wolves within us. One is evil and one is good. Those wolves are fighting. And which wolf wins the fight? The one we feed.

2. Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?

I don't know that we can objectively determine a "person's nature" but I think we can REASONABLY and generally ACCURATELY determine a person's nature based on observation.

It's POSSIBLE that a truly evil person can keep evil intentions hidden from friends and observers all around over time, but the odds of it truly being hidden, in spite of evidence of a good life, are ridiculously small. I'd say, along with Jesus, that one can recognize them by their fruit/by their actions. A good tree, Jesus said, will bear good fruit and that is observable.

Is a “good” deed done for a “bad” motive really qualify as “good”?

My short answer: No.

My slightly longer answer: I would say that it would truly depend. The question is too vague and not enough data is available. Generally speaking, I'd be suspicious of good deeds done for a bad motive.

Can the same action be good or bad depending on the circumstances or motivation?

Yes, I think so.

If we’re defined only by our actions, then what’s the magic number to be considered “good”?

There is no magic number.

No one is arguing that a person that we observe who is "reasonably good..." i.e., the saints we all have in our lives... people who are consistently patient and kind and helpful and loving to people - especially the down and out and marginalized, and with no obvious immoral actions - No one is arguing that such a person is PERFECTLY good. I'm just saying that, given the fruit of one's life and especially over time, you can recognize good people by their fruit.

Perfectly good? No, of course not. REASONABLY good. Yes, of course.

++++++

Those were my answers to his questions. My questions to him went unanswered.

What I've asked are questions like...

1. We all have those saintly people in our lives - people we recognize as good, who are, over time, consistently helpful, patient, kind, loving, grace-full, welcoming and who have no huge obvious misbehaviors in their actions - or at least, I do. Do you have people in your life who you recognize as obviously good people?

2. Given the evidence of Good People in the world, do we have any reason to suspect that they're NOT good, for some reason?

3. I recognize that some Calvinist types may say that by Good, they mean Perfect, i.e., without sin, like God. But that is not the standard definition of Good. Using the commonly understood, standard definition of Good, do we have any reason to suspect that no Good people exist?

4. What would be your argument for that? Do you recognize that this sounds crazy on the face of it to many - perhaps most people?