When I was a young conservative man, I listened to what my conservative Christian teachers told me:
Humanity is totally depraved.
Humanity is evil.
There is no one good, no, not one.
I listened and I believed. I believed it so intently that I could not conceive of this theory being anything but entirely, 100% perfectly correct and indisputable. After all, look at Hitler. Look at those men who would rape women... who would beat children. Monsters. Awful human beings. And there's a reason for that, I was told and I believed: Humanity is evil, corrupt, depraved in every possible way... the human mind in ALL humans was darkened and incapable of understanding good.
So, I was told and so, I believed.
The longer I live, the more I listened to conservative "defense" of this idea, the more that conservatives have pushed me away from believing this is a rational (or biblical, for that matter) opinion/human theory. It is, at the very best, entirely unproven and unsupported and at worst, an awful, oppressive and damaging theory promoted for less-than-noble reasons.
And why have I changed my opinion? Simple reality. I can see with my own eyes that there are indeed, good people in the world. Many of them.
And understand: I'm not saying that all of humanity is good all of the time. Of course, not. There are genuinely bad people deliberately doing genuinely bad/harmful things. There are the Hitlers, the rapists, the abusers. The men who would sexually assault women then boast how they can get away with it because of their power, wealth and position.
But the every day people - especially the helpers - those who teach, who nurse, who nurture, who assist, the social workers, the environmentalists, the people whose jobs are to empower the poor, marginalized, the sick and disabled... I know these people. They are just who and what they appear to be: Good people engaged in helpful activities for positive reasons.
And, at the same time that they're being helpful and working for justice and peace, they're also not engaged in deliberately harmful, "bad" behavior.
The social worker who has worked for 38 years now - all of her adult life - who entered the field because she wanted to be true to God and God's repeated calls to ally with and for the poor and marginalized... and so, for almost four decades has helped homeless people get off the streets, to find housing, to get needed health care, to get out of abusive relationships, to get out of addictions. She has welcomed the poor and homeless into her own home and kitchen. She's helped the children in these homeless families get needed resources. She's seen some of those formerly un-housed children get college degrees and go into helping professions themselves.
And sure, she's sometimes impatient, she has her own anxieties and depressions, but she hasn't stolen, she hasn't assaulted people, she's been faithful in her relationships, she sure hasn't killed.
She is a genuinely good person, a hard worker whose life work has NOT been just to enrich herself, but to find solutions to problems that poor and oppressed people face. She is a genuinely good person, by any rational measure.
And I personally know dozens of people like this intimately. And for those I don't know as well, I know hundreds of people less well whose life stories fit this model. They are clearly good people by reasonable measures. There is no serious evidence of corruption or total depravity or evil in their lives.
They are, to a person, imperfect people. But being imperfect is not the same as being bad. It's just not.
I bring this up because I've been asking this question for years now and trying to find examples for months now: WHERE is the hard evidence to support this claim that all humans are bad people, totally corrupt and depraved... evil, even? WHERE is the evidence that they have "rebellious hearts?" I've asked... as well as asking for a definition of "rebellious heart..."?
And every time, this question goes unanswered and ignored. The few times that anyone even tries to address it, there answer is almost always something along the lines of "We don't have to answer! It's self-evident! It's already proven!"
But it's not. It's just not. Go ahead - do a search for anyone even trying to make a rational case that proves that all humans are evil, bad and have "rebellious hearts..." There's no one even trying to prove it.
They are assuming that the answer is a given - "Of course, people are evil, ALL people! That's why the only just punishment is an eternity of torture!" Just like I believed, when I was a young conservative. But that assumption remains unproven and the unproven nature of the claim is problematic. One can't just bully their way into forcing agreement... especially when you're making a counter intuitive claim - a claim that real world data disproves.
We can SEE good people all around us. Every day. Or at least I can.
The only way I ever see any try to deal with that is, "Well, you're not judging who is good rightly... They may be good by human standards, but not by "god's standards." But when I ask for proof or support for that, the question remains unanswered.
I find it incredibly puzzling, this complete avoidance of the topic.
But the flip side of all of this is that these "people are evil" theorists have helped me see the beautiful goodness of the Beloved Community. There ARE so many people out there being truly good, truly great and what a blessing that is to see in action. So, thank you conservatives, for finally pushing me completely away from the "people are evil" failed theory.
53 comments:
1. The people that “proved it” were 17th century oppositional lawyers of Western Europe.
So, today, the people who assume the worldview that the world and all that is in it is, in its basic nature, evil, are descendants of social learning from radical Protestantism. Usually we keep what we are taught to believe as uniquely important.
But evil in history is always met with good. Over a million killed or casualties dedicated their lives to what they knew would be the end of slavery. 80 million! lost their lives in a victory over fascism. A thousand women were killed or beaten in the Suffragette Movement. (It would behoove Marshal and Craig - who blame those protesting black people being murdered by our police force for violence - to remember that some White women committed bombings and arson which killed a handful and injure more; because their rights as equal human beings were being denied.) Thousands of nonviolent black people and scores of white people - Christians, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, atheists - were killed or beaten in the Civil Rights Movement.
Cyrus released Israel from bondage. Islamic government in Spain ruled a society that included Christians and Jews with diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Christian Reconquista regime required baptism or killed or exiled all the others. Frederick III, the Habsburg emperor invited Jews being cast out to settle and work in what is now western Ukraine, southern Poland, and eastern Slovakia. 450 years later, Hitler slaughtered the greater part of them, and afterward, the coasts and big cities of the US and historically black colleges offered them a home, but not the heartland of the good ole USA.
Evil and Good are there to be seen.
Radical Protestantism, contradictorily, only sees EVIL out there, but demands good at home. Original sin ceases to be case for commonality and compassion and communal identity, as it was for the most of the church’s life and is instead a motive for jihad.
This is not the case with liturgical and sacramental Christian practice. Good and Evil are options in the Roman, Eastern, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, Mar Thoma, Anglican, Lutheran, Quaker, and UCC churches.
Sin is part of us. Part of the us that is also made in the image and likeness of God. The Fall, in Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and the Roman church, is not an existential or essential shaping of our nature. We were made by god, for Christ’s sake! But we are faulty… as well as bearing the capacity to be glorifying for all. We learn and grow *through* our faults. Many, though, like our mutual thugs, exercise their Will to refuse to learn some things that they cannot stand. In this, they are sinning and their self interest in these areas necessitates their being brutal to their neighbors rather than being a Good Samaritan.
2. Your family and friends and colleagues and acquaintances and the members of your surrounding community, and you yourself, bear this nature of being made in the image and likeness of god into your relationships with each other and into the world. You are good by nature but humanly good. Which is to say you are all also prey to and give into various acts motivated by anxieties of self worth.
And this is why, to me, spiritual faith and practice of most kinds - if owned and practiced without the sins of pride, judgment, and concupiscence [like the Thugs do] - keep us humble, and therefore attentive to others, and therefore, for us, Christlike.
3. None of this answers the glaring scandal that of the inference of an absolute good god allowing evil.
Fundamentally, this unanswered question provokes the unconscious anxiety that so attacks the christian faith of the thugs. They do not realize this anxious suffering drives their terrifying gripe on the Bible as a rule book. They destroy the sacredness of scripture by treating it as a tablet of stone. In a reversal of Paul, their enslavement to their anxiety makes them replace their heart of flesh with this idol of rock hard words.
The Hebrew Scriptures and Paul are direct on calling this weak and corrupt faith.
For those of us with mature faith, the question of an absolute good god allowing evil in the world is exactly the same as astoundingly scandalous reality that god became incarnate in human flesh - what an act of raising humanity to eternal worth - and the facing suffering and a cruel death in order to - timelessly, cosmically - bring about absolute justice and beauty.
The good, the true, the beautiful. These things are the created nature of the universe. For those of us who cry out to God to rain down justice and truth and love like a torrent, we must wait in faith while we, too, bear the sufferings of our wronged, cheated, abused, murdered. If we do not bear them - while preserving our own bequeathed goods - then we are not following Christ.
We all, believers and not, act and wait for better future for all.
For myself, I do better when I have something to hope for. And faith is the hope in things unseen
Once again, that’s probably too much scriptural reference for Bubba and the Thugs. Idolators don’t like to peer too long at their Idol. Because it contains both too much and too little for the 17th century. For the 21st as well, Dan, but that’s our problem.
You were never "conservative" simply because of rote repetition or acceptance of that which you believe is emblematic of conservatism.
You again ignore what Scripture says and pretend it means something else, without doing a thing to present a logical, coherent or intelligent argument for an alternative (or "true") meaning. So the evidence is from there if the argument is strictly about what is good from a Christian perspective. You stray from that as it suits you and then pretend you haven't been informed of the legitimate source of this rightly held position. YOU seem to want think that it means everyone you know is an abject asshole. That's not the argument. Striving to do good doesn't make one good. It makes one a person who strives to do good. It means a person has a desire to serve. It doesn't mean the person is "good" from a Christian perspective. It means the person is good by a personal, subjective perspective of what constitutes "good". We can live with that in this world, in order to express ourselves and know someone isn't likely a threat to do grievous harm. But that still doesn't make them "good".
You speak of what your "good" associates don't do, as if that list is sufficient to prove them "good". It doesn't, because not all evil is as blatantly destructive and damaging as you need for your personal subjective definition. And has been exhaustively mentioned, what constitutes "good" is culturally dependent, and even if there's overlap, it doesn't account for what doesn't overlap.
My opinion of those I regard as "good" people isn't in conflict with Christ's insistence there's no one good but God, or any Scriptural teaching along those lines. That's because when I apply the word to anyone, it's done in comparison to others, not in comparison to God. No one YOU know is anything like God. The length of the universe isn't long enough to describe the disparity between man and God.
The fact that no one is good but God is why we need Christ. It's why no sacrifice in the OT period was sufficient to truly atone and become "good" enough and why no "good" act is sufficient now.
So all you're doing is arguing against truth by presenting examples, not of "good" people, but people who do enough nice things that among we lowly human beings, WE choose to label them as "good". Even so, we say they're good people, not "good" as the word is used in Scripture to teach that only God is. So yeah, it is about perfection. And whether you choose to say "good" or "perfect", the same truth applies. We're neither and because of that we need Christ, without Whom there's no getting in.
The truth of the concept is not a slight on those who do good routinely. This is where you go wrong. Those who understand it and accept it aren't going to start calling people evil on account of it. You need to get over that fear and stop pretending Scripture lies to you.
Marshal is vapid he talks about scripture but doesn’t know it. He’s so like Trump. Just a blowhard.
What are human beings that you are mindful of them,
or mortals, that you care for them?
You have made them for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned them with glory and honor
subjecting all things under their feet.
Marshal began right off by making an unsupported and rather silly claim:
You were never "conservative" simply because of rote repetition or acceptance of that which you believe is emblematic of conservatism.
I was conservative because I believed conservative tenets and ideology. That is what makes one conservative. Don't bother repeating this false claim, it's just an inane nothing.
Marshal continued by making another unsupported and fallacious claim:
You again ignore what Scripture says and pretend it means something else, without doing a thing to present a logical, coherent or intelligent argument for an alternative (or "true") meaning.
You continue to commit the logical fallacy (probably several) of begging the question. The question IS, "Did Jesus mean that there were/are literally NO good people...?" THAT is the question. You're presuming the answer is Yes and then saying I haven't disproven it.
And I have offered a real world, observable rational explanation of why it CAN'T be literal: We see good people. Good, as good is traditionally counted.
I don't know if you are just so blinded by your allegiance to your human traditions that you can't see this or what, but that IS a reasonable answer, even if you don't understand it.
Marshal:
You speak of what your "good" associates don't do, as if that list is sufficient to prove them "good".
I speak of Good as Good is typically defined and understood. There ARE people with good hearts who are kind, compassionate, helpful, loving, forgiving and giving. They try deliberately to live their lives to make the world a better place. We can SEE this in the real world. That IS what they DO (in addition to what they don't do - things like kill, rape or sexually assault women and then laugh and boast about it as some actual deviants are wont to do).
Don't bother responding and I may or may not leave your nothing comment. The ONLY thing you can respond with are things like:
1. YOUR personal definition of Good, to try to make sense of your nonsense.
2. Why your personal alternative definition of Good is authoritative or means anything.
3. Some objective proof that I'm mistaken in noting the reality of Good People.
Empty claims (the entirety of your comment that remains so far) are nothing. They're less than nothing. When presented as a given fact, they are objectively lies and harmful to truth and reality.
People are tired of the modern GOP living as if your false reality should be taken seriously.
Setting aside the great costs that the Magop is costing in terms of decency and human rights and Democracy, how many actual dollars is Team Trump costing the US with their repeated stirring up of bomb threats and days lost in school and days off work and just basic mental suffering and oppression?
That's me, Dan. Dang computers and hi-fi modern techobabblery.
The GOP and Murdoch’s FOX has groomed - in predatory fashion - millions of disaffected White people who feel bad about themselves but, as generationally practiced for 5 centuries, blame all Other Boogeymen for their failure in resiliency, decency, and morality.
Craig provides another recent case of an addiction to lies. Trusting his corrupt sources as “news”, he’s tried to say that Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Trump that states should be allowed to decide re full women’s right to health choices, namely abortion. I told him - anonymously because of the new shitty updates on blogger - that he got it all wrong but would never admit it: RBG thought that the better course of action back in the day would have been a concerted, slower movement to get all states to enshrine full equal rights of women over their bodies [up to viability] as a surer way to guarantee it. She felt Roe v Wade cut off progress and actually foresaw the ability to take away the right to abortion by one strike judicial action.
Craig complained that “anonymous” didn’t provide any proof. Seeing that, I clarified that it was me and that he didn’t have the capacity to actually google anything to verify or fail to verify his poisonous sources. I gave him a search phrase where dozens of sources bear me out: RBG wanted a more certain guarantee for abortion and far more progress to enshrine equal rights for women. RBG was clear on the capacity for brutalization by white men that Craig and the other thugs demonstrate.
Craig, as predicted, cannot reveal any of this. He is too wedded to his thrill to hate, and the lies necessary for hate.
And in the last few years the Thugs have felt a need to feel as if MLK Jr isn’t that far from their own morality. How vulgar, vain, and disrespectful. MLK spoke endlessly about systemic racism and Black Lives Matter. His vocabulary was I Am A Man and I’m black and I’m beautiful. The Thugs cannot find within themselves the natural admiration of black physical and cultural beauty. They have killed off what God has made in each us: recognition of the divine in our own incarnation.
The news in recent… years… and so much more in recent days has me believing that this conclusion is no longer sentiment or smarmy, cute or quipy, sophomoric or sassy, but, rather, society protecting:
Let women lead.
Women only. All women who call themselves a woman.
And let us raise up more.
And this goes for both parties and foremost for all three branches of government.
Not to say that women are *essentially better. But generational proximity to power, sociological forces that shape identity construction, and general consequences of malformed desire are 75% to 90% less brutalizing of other people.
"1. YOUR personal definition of Good, to try to make sense of your nonsense."
I have two:
a) God. God is good and as Jesus said, no one else is good but Him.
b) The manifestation of various positive/beneficial characteristics and traits in a specific context.
For example, "this tastes 'good'". "She's a 'good' singer". "Blue looks 'good' on you." These examples are based on personal subjective opinions which compare that which is regarded as "good" with other things in kind not so regarded. "This tastes 'bad'." "He's not a very 'good' singer." "Blue is not your color."
With regard to people, there the same comparison being made based on one's subjective notions regarding behaviors. All such people regarded as "good" are good by comparison because of behaviors regarded by the observer to be "good" behaviors. They may be seen as kind, effective, compassionate, disciplined, dedicated, beneficial and the like. But they are compared even to others who manifest the same qualities, but to a lesser or greater degree. They may thus be "good", but "not as good" as the next guy, or "better than the others".
Thus, "good" is indeed perfection, which is why there is no one good but God, while at the same time, by comparing one to another, some are good, some are better, some not good at all. As such, despite someone's personal desire to "be" good, all they can hope for is that they "do" good, and with an acceptance of Christ as Savior, and the desire to please God, they can because of Christ's saving sacrificial death on the cross, be presented before God as "good". That is, they are presented as such and will be regarded as such by God. They're deeds don't get it done. Scripture 101.
"2. Why your personal alternative definition of Good is authoritative or means anything."
First of all, it's not an "alternative definition". Yours is. Mine is derived from Christ's own words as recorded in Scripture. Mine is derived from other parts of Scripture which affirm the notion that no one is good. It doesn't in my eyes diminish the quality of people I would refer to as "good people". It's two different things: Good as compared to God, versus good as compared to other people based on my understanding of what constitutes such a person. You fail in that regard because of vile positions your hold despite good deeds you perform.
My "personal" definition is authoritative, then, because its aligns with Scriptural teaching, and you've not provided anything from Scripture which actually contradicts that reality. You simply assert that it does on the flimsiest of arguments and a contorted understanding of whatever verse or passage you cite.
"3. Some objective proof that I'm mistaken in noting the reality of Good People."
Here's the problem. You haven't provide objective proof that you're correct in regarding people as "good", but have only given your subjective opinion that you regard them as good. On a human level, and if we only consider specific actions, I can agree those actions are laudable and assuming sincerity on the part of such people regarding why they do what they do, their intentions can also be likewise lauded. But as Craig rightly points out, no one can read the heart of another, regardless of how close one is to the other. Safe bets aside, that's simply not possible to know that at no time does that person ever harbor evil thoughts or desires or opinions.
And as I stated, if we're to take YOUR word that those people believe as you do, then they clearly aren't good people.
The only "objective fact" is that you regard these people as "good". But that's a worthless "fact" which doesn't have any relevance to the question of no one being good but God. It's proof of nothing but your own opinion of them, even if my only knowledge of them is all the wonderful things you say about them.
"People are tired of the modern GOP living as if your false reality should be taken seriously."
"Progressives" are tired of being told what reality is because they find reality so inconvenient to their personal desires. You can't successfully argue against THAT truth, either.
I’m glad to see that Marshal admits he’s no good. Admission is the first step toward living more in the way our createdness points.
The next step he needs to take is to acknowledge how vast the number of people is who are way beyond him in moral goodness.
And aspire to be more in their company.
And aspire to be more in their company.
Ha!
Feodor, you'd think that, given how low an opinion they have of themselves and humanity - how wicked and totally depraved they think they are - that they'd be a bit more humble in their views of their personal human opinions and traditions. But then, maybe it's not themselves they think of as totally depraved... it's everyone else but those who agree with them?
Dan:
"1. YOUR personal definition of Good, to try to make sense of your nonsense."
Marshal:
I have two:
a) God. God is good and as Jesus said, no one else is good but Him.
So, to YOU and YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINION, flawed and imperfect as it is, YOU think of "good" as being "PERFECT AS GOD ALMIGHTY."
And you're welcome to that definition, so far as it goes.
The next question:
Do you understand and acknowledge that this is a made up and personal alternative definition than the standard English definition... that it's something that YOU think but it's not a standard understanding of the term?
Indeed, do you understand that your personal non-standard feelings about what "good" means is way beyond and contrary to the typical definition and understanding of "good..."?
Do you further acknowledge that if and when someone makes up a new, non-standard definition of a word, that no one is obliged to think that this is THE new accepted definition?
Please answer these questions or move on.
Marshal continued with his personal and unsupported subjective opinions about "good," saying:
With regard to people, there the same comparison being made based on one's subjective notions regarding behaviors. All such people regarded as "good" are good by comparison because of behaviors regarded by the observer to be "good" behaviors.
Says who?
I don't accept your personal opinion on this point. Certainly not as anything authoritative or representing reasonable or God's will.
I know a person. She's been a social worker her whole life. Outside of her job, she's welcomed homeless people into her home for years, giving them a home. She has been a good mother, pouring out her life in love in raising children of her own. She's also poured out her life in helping and guiding and supporting children who were not her own biological children. She's done this for dozens if not hundreds of children, to varying degrees. She's done it for adults, as well.
She's not done this for glory or riches. She's just a reasonable, kind person who thinks it makes sense to help one another. Period. Many of her kind actions were not even known to other people.
She's not "good" in comparison to, say, Hitler. She's just a good person doing good, kind, helpful, loving things for the love of humanity. Period. NOT "good in comparison," just good.
You have no data, no proof, no rational support to say that she's not good or that she's only good in comparison. The only rational observation is that she's just actually a good person.
NOTE: Of course, that's not saying she's a perfect person. But she is objectively, measurably, observably a good person. Just as Jesus noted: We will know good trees by their good fruit and we can know good people by their good actions and lives.
Do you acknowledge that your personal human opinion on this is just that - your personal subjective opinion? That no rational person has any reason to say, "Marshal has said so, so it must be true!"?
Marshal:
You haven't provide objective proof that you're correct in regarding people as "good", but have only given your subjective opinion that you regard them as good.
Of course, I do. I just GAVE you objective, observable proof of one good person. There's nothing subjective in noting, "A person who does good and kind and helpful things for good, kind motives is, by typical understanding of the word, "Good," a good person."
She is a good person by definition.
What you're missing is that IF you want to try to prove that in some sense these people like this are NOT good, that the burden is on the ACCUSER (satan?) to support the false and ridiculous claim.
We can reasonably note/observe that good people are good people on a continuum of Good... that it's difficult to say "that social worker who did all that is good, AND that teacher who adopted children and took care of her parents is also good... but the teacher is better..." There's not ONE single set of traits that makes one more good than another good person. But we can't rationally say that they're not good people with no cause.
NOW, we could say that IF it turned out that the teacher was secretly killing and eating the children she adopted that, NO, of course she wasn't good in that regards.
But that's why the Accuser who wants to try to make a claim that an observably good person is NOT good, that the burden is on them to support the nonsense, unsupported claim.
Do you admit that you have NO DATA to say that social worker is not a good person? That you can not prove in ANY sense at all that the social worker in my case study is NOT good?
In a shallow argument of bizarre associations serving only to force some “Craig” authority on scripture, he wants to suggest that Jesus was fine with weapons of self defense while Democrats don’t? One lie. And then somehow against physics he pivots to the say Christ didn’t come to help people materially. (The miracles were meaningless in any way to those who benefited: just objects for Craig.)
My response.
It’s pretty clear that Jesus denied assault weapons to his posse. In fact, apparently he didn’t anything to train or organize them as a defense unit. What he did do was train them to pay attention to the widow, the orphan, the outcast, the hungry, etc. Having a limited knowledge of scripture as you do, if you need me to give you the verses, just ask.
Jesus’ primary mission is to save the world - and surely you see that the mission of the eternal son of god… is eternal… then obviously he established the church as his body to join with him in carrying out the secondary mission of feeding and housing and caring for the world. Which is exactly what the early church as attested in the NT reveals. If you need the verses just ask.
Kamala has a gun for self defense. No democrat argues that basic self defense is necessary. No one needs an assault rifle. They shouldn’t be available except for the military.
Swords do a lot of work in the ancient world. A lance has only one purpose. Peter didn’t have a lance. Neither does Kamala have an assault rifle.
Craig’s a self interested idiot reader of his idol.
Craig doesn’t know the world - or want to know it - of his idol book.
Reasons for Christians to have a sword while traveling from village to village without a car in ancient Palestine:
Lions
Hippopotami
Bears
Cheetahs
Wolves
"Feodor, you'd think that, given how low an opinion they have of themselves and humanity - how wicked and totally depraved they think they are - that they'd be a bit more humble in their views of their personal human opinions and traditions."
Clearly, you're choosing (falsely) to assume a lack of humility by the simple expression of a claim. How arrogantly presumptuous!
"But then, maybe it's not themselves they think of as totally depraved... it's everyone else but those who agree with them?"
There's no "maybe" here, but you're willful (false) disregard for the fact we've expressed, which is that mankind is totally depraved, though those who arrogantly reject this clear and unmistakable Biblical teaching are especially so.
"So, to YOU and YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINION, flawed and imperfect as it is, YOU think of "good" as being "PERFECT AS GOD
ALMIGHTY.""
No. Not my "personal human opinion", but a perfect restatement of Christ's pronouncement of a truth.
"And you're welcome to that definition, so far as it goes."
Thanks. You're permission is not required in any way, and it goes all the way, given Jesus doesn't lie.
"Do you understand and acknowledge that this is a made up and personal alternative definition than the standard English definition... that it's something that YOU think but it's not a standard understanding of the term?"
Of course that's not true, because I didn't "make it up". I espouse the definition Christ affirmed. What you present as "the standard English definition" is a far more accurate representation of a "human tradition" than the definition given by Jesus, Who would know, given He's God.
"Indeed, do you understand that your personal non-standard feelings about what "good" means is way beyond and contrary to the typical definition and understanding of "good..."?"
Jesus is not "typical" and I defer to His authority in determining definitions for words we choose to use in our own way.
"Do you further acknowledge that if and when someone makes up a new, non-standard definition of a word, that no one is obliged to think that this is THE new accepted definition?"
Says a guy who complicit in the illegitimate redefining of so many words, such as "marriage", "family", "immigrant", "woman", "fetus", "recession", "racism", "assault weapon", "liberal/progressive", "affordable" and a host of other words.
In the meantime, I've not redefined "good". I just understand the difference between the exact definition (as affirmed by Jesus) and how we use it for convenient communication between ourselves.
More to your "point", I abide the actual definition, and how we as human beings use the word to describe each other is the "new" definition.
"Marshal continued with his personal and unsupported subjective opinions about "good,"..."
This is purposely false, as there's neither anything "personal" (as in merely my opinion) nor "subjective" and certainly nothing "unsupported" since I've cited the authority of Jesus and repeated His definition of the word "good".
"Says who?"
Says honest, intelligent and rational people, especially those who are actual Christians with a reverence for God's Truth.
"I don't accept your personal opinion on this point. Certainly not as anything authoritative or representing reasonable or God's will."
Given it's not my "personal opinion" but rather a presentation of the words of Jesus, it's just another Truth of God you're rejecting/refusing to accept. Few things are more representative of God's Will than to quote Him.
"I know a person."
Here we go again.
"She's not "good" in comparison to, say, Hitler."
Clearly she is, assuming your description of her is accurate and you have 100% accurate knowledge of her heart...which you couldn't possibly, though it wouldn't matter.
"NOT "good in comparison," just good."
But "in comparison" is the only way to measure goodness in a human being. As no two people are truly identical (identical twins are truly and perfectly identical to each other), she's clearly "better" or "more good" than some and less so than others. And she's certainly less so that God, as Jesus confirmed of us all, because only God is good.
"You have no data, no proof, no rational support to say that she's not good or that she's only good in comparison."
I have the words of Jesus, which are authoritative. I can easily admit (assuming your description of her is in any way accurate) that she's determined to be good, and that's good enough for me. And as she is so determined, she's clearly good as compared to many. But she's not "good" because, as Jesus confirmed there is no one good but God.
"NOTE: Of course, that's not saying she's a perfect person."
...which is what "good" means, according to Jesus.
"But she is objectively, measurably, observably a good person."
...compared to many, perhaps most. She is certainly, "objectively", measurably and observably someone who is determined to be good, and that's good enough for me. That's certainly laudable in itself and thus good enough for me.
"Just as Jesus noted: We will know good trees by their good fruit and we can know good people by their good actions and lives."
Ironically, the actual verse in which "knowing a tree" is referenced speaks of your kind...but not in a way you'll like.
"Do you acknowledge that your personal human opinion on this is just that - your personal subjective opinion? That no rational person has any reason to say, "Marshal has said so, so it must be true!"?"
I don't knowingly and willfully acknowledge obvious falsehoods such as this, and no rational person can be pressured to say, "Dan insists, so we must abide."
"Of course, I do. I just GAVE you objective, observable proof of one good person."
No you didn't. You presented a story of some unnamed woman and expect me to take your word that she even exists or exists as you describe her. What's more, you gave an example of someone who is good by Dan Trabue's subjective standards.
" There's nothing subjective in noting, "A person who does good and kind and helpful things for good, kind motives is, by typical understanding of the word, "Good," a good person.""
Sorry, Dan, but that's exactly a subjective opinion from one end to the other. Even if I was to agree with you in referring to this person as "good", it's still subjective as we share the same personal criteria for applying the term to her.
" She is a good person by definition."
...as per "human tradition", not by the definition confirmed by Jesus. But I'm good with that. Why you refuse to be is concerning.
I would also submit how you indict yourself in your lauding of the degree of goodness you attribute to this woman, as you do so in a manner which surpasses any determination toward goodness you might exert yourself. If she's "good" by your description, then how can you, too, "be" good? You're clearly not "as good" as she is, or you wouldn't hold her up as emblematic of a "good" person as if she transcends the typical degree of goodness of your own. Or are you (*snicker*) just being humble? If so, would that make you even better than her?
But I digress...
"What you're missing is that IF you want to try to prove that in some sense these people like this are NOT good, that the burden is on the ACCUSER (satan?) to support the false and ridiculous claim."
Nice. Comparing me to Satan. You're a pip of a "Christian".
But I absolutely and repeatedly have supported this factual claim, by citing Scripture. But you reject Scripture and instead say, "...did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?" (Matt 8:22)
"We can reasonably note/observe that good people are good people on a continuum of Good..."
Oh! A "continuum" of good! THAT'S not a subjective human tradition at all!
"But we can't rationally say that they're not good people with no cause."
That's funny and ironic since you're giving cause for insisting they're good. In the meantime, I accept Christ's definition and it doesn't bother me at all. Again, we're to "be" holy because God is holy. In the same way, to "be" good is a state to which we're to aspire. Not having attained that perfection is not an indictment as much as a mere statement of fact. No one is good but God, but hopefully, each of us strives to "be" good because God is good.
"NOW, we could say that IF it turned out that the teacher was secretly killing and eating the children she adopted that, NO, of course she wasn't good in that regards."
How absurd to suppose that only the most extreme acts of evil must be perpetrated in order to acknowledge one is not good.
"But that's why the Accuser who wants to try to make a claim that an observably good person is NOT good, that the burden is on them to support the nonsense, unsupported claim."
Scripture supports my position perfectly, since my position is informed by Scripture. You're clearly NOT "good" for daring to compare me to Satan by holding my position informed by Christ and in suggesting I'm "accusing" anyone by encouraging you to pump the brakes on equating anyone to God.
"Do you admit that you have NO DATA to say that social worker is not a good person? That you can not prove in ANY sense at all that the social worker in my case study is NOT good?"
Asked and answered repeatedly. My "DATA" is Scripture and the words of Jesus specifically. Your personal opinion doesn't make her good. The words of Jesus confirmed only God is.
Game, set and match.
Marshal:
"Game, set and match..."?
Every single claim you make is unsupported. That's a fail right off the bat. Strikes one, two and three. You're out.
Your empty opinions about what you personally think some verses mean to you personally (as well as others in your human tradition think personally in their own human heads) is literally your subjective opinions. Not objective proof.
Your comments will be deleted shortly because you're failing on one of your basic tasks, Marshal: IF YOU want to make objective claims that you say are facts, then YOU must provide the hard data to support the claims. It's quite reasonable and obvious.
"I think that these passages should be interpreted this way..." is literally not objective support.
You are not a god, little man. Humble yourself.
But "in comparison" is the only way to measure goodness in a human being.
PROVE IT. Or admit you can't.
You can't.
Marshal:
Not my "personal human opinion", but a perfect restatement of Christ's pronouncement of a truth. (ie, that to be "truly" good, one must be perfect, like God.)
PROVE IT. This is literally YOUR subjective and unproven human opinion. Jesus never said that and even if he did (which he didn't), you'd have to provide support as to why you think Jesus in that case was not being figurative.
When you can't prove it (and you can't), then admit as much and move on. Demonstrate some adult intellectual integrity.
Marshal:
she's not "good" because, as Jesus confirmed there is no one good but God.
PROVE IT. I hate to be a broken record, but these inane, grade school, 1 inch deep thinking you're doing is always just your unproven opinions. You don't even TRY to support them objectively. You act as if your mere declaration of them says it all.
It doesn't.
The Bible records God speaking of good men. Therefore, even within the pages of your bible, you find a contradiction. It can't be literally true for their to be NO good people AND for God to think that Noah or Moses or David were good people. JESUS is recorded as saying, "You will know good people by their actions..." LITERALLY saying that we can see good people because they exist. WHY would he say that if he didn't think it was possible?
You're demonstrating some serious reading literacy deficiencies in your rather grade school level approach to literary criticism and understanding.
PROVE IT. Or admit you can't.
From the Bible:
“The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord:
and God delights in his way.”
"Turn from evil and do good;
then you will dwell in the land forever.
For the Lord loves the just
and will not forsake his faithful ones.
Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed;
the offspring of the wicked will perish.
The righteous will inherit the land
and dwell in it forever."
~Psalm 37, where God clearly recognizes good people and expects us to be good.
"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."
~Jesus, in Luke 6, noting the reality of actual "GOOD PEOPLE."
"For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good"
~Jesus again, in Matthew 5, speaking of good people, plural.
"The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil."
~Jesus, again, in Matthew 12
"For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith."
~Acts 11, speaking of Barnabas who was "A GOOD MAN..." But, but, but... MARSHAL says that's not possible because MARSHAL has a secret proof about this that he's not willing to share of demonstrate. WHO to trust, Marshal, or the many biblical witnesses and speakers, including God and Jesus?
Hmm...
I can do that all day. Noah was considered a righteous (ie, GOOD) man, Job as well. Hell, in fact, the word used for them was PERFECT. They were PERFECT men, biblically speaking. Now, do I think that simply because there's a line in the Bible that uses perfect to speak of some people that these were actual perfect people? NO. But then, neither do I say, "Well, there's a line that says no one is good, so that must mean there are literally no good people."
That's just immature reading. Just because there's a line with a word in the Bible does not mean it must be taken literally. And this is especially true when we can see that it's not literally, given the reality of actually good people.
The definition of Good, once again, is NOT Perfect. That's YOUR personal human theory, not one shared by most adults. Or even God, who clearly thinks there are good people IF you take the Bible seriously.
The Thugs don’t know what you’re missing.
In the Hands of God: How Evangelical Belonging Transforms Migrant Experience in the United States by Johanna Bard Richlin
Why do migrants become more deeply evangelical in the United States and how does this religious identity alter their self-understanding? In the Hands of God examines this question through a unique lens, foregrounding the ways that churches transform what migrants feel. Drawing from her extensive fieldwork among Brazilian migrants in the Washington, DC, area, Johanna Bard Richlin shows that affective experience is key to comprehending migrants’ turn toward intense religiosity, and their resulting evangelical commitment.
The conditions of migrant life—family separation, geographic isolation, legal precariousness, workplace vulnerability, and deep uncertainty about the future—shape specific affective maladies, including loneliness, despair, and feeling stuck. These feelings in turn trigger novel religious yearnings. Evangelical churches deliberately and deftly articulate, manage, and reinterpret migrant distress through affective therapeutics, the strategic “healing” of migrants’ psychological pain. Richlin offers insights into the affective dimensions of migration, the strategies pursued by evangelical churches to attract migrants, and the ways in which evangelical belonging enables migrants to feel better, emboldening them to improve their lives.
Looking at the ways evangelical churches help migrants navigate negative emotions, In the Hands of God sheds light on the versatility and durability of evangelical Christianity.
"Every single claim you make is unsupported."
Pick one and we'll see. This blanket dismissive nonsense is not "good faith".
"Your empty opinions about what you personally think some verses mean to you personally (as well as others in your human tradition think personally in their own human heads) is literally your subjective opinions. Not objective proof."
Again, pick an opinion and we'll see. Does "Thou shalt not" really need some kind of deep forensic investigation to know it means "Don't do this"? You throw this "lacking support" in lieu of an actual argument to counter my positions. You're fooling no one, including yourself.
" Your comments will be deleted shortly because you're failing on one of your basic tasks, Marshal: IF YOU want to make objective claims that you say are facts, then YOU must provide the hard data to support the claims. It's quite reasonable and obvious."
There you go again, pretending I've not done what I've done, and because you can't truly defend YOUR position, or prove mine is in error, you choose the deletion cop out.
""I think that these passages should be interpreted this way..." is literally not objective support."
This is a lie...a false representation of my position and how I argue it. I begin with what Scripture says, you pretend it means something different than what the words on the page suggest, and then I demand that "Thou shalt not" means "Don't do this". Then you have the audacity to disparage me as not being adult. That's hilarious. So tell me...how am I to prove what something as plainly presented as "Thou shalt not" means "Don't do this"? And why don't you simply provide your evidence that it means something else? Answer: because what I believe a given verse or passage means is plain, or the arguments I've provided for that which is less than plain is too compelling for you to even try to counter. Thus, you play this "prove it" game , which leads to deletions.
"You are not a god, little man. Humble yourself."
How adult! How Christian! How grace embracing! How is this any better than that of which you accuse me? It's rude, condescending and false in it's implications.
"PROVE IT. Or admit you can't.
You can't."
Why must I, as it's far more self-evidently true than anything about which you've presented as self-evidently true. What's more, the comparing of one to another is also subjective. You're clearly not a good person, because your evil deeds are too severely so that they aren't at all covered up by your "good deeds".
What's more, we could take everything you say proves another is good, and apply it to a muslim, and in the eyes of the muslims, the fact that the subject also kills Jews makes him even better. YOU have just said you opposed killing innocents, but in their culture, it's just peachy and worthy of praise. Such a person is "good" in the eyes of the muslim.
MY view of a "good person" prohibits the use of term being applied to your OR the muslim.
God, on the other hand, does NOT sin. EVER. Even when He commanded the Hebrews to wipe out every living person in a town....even when He wiped out the world with a flood and Sodom with fire and brimstone. You can't handle that and reject those truths presented in Scripture because God doesn't abide YOUR notions of what constitutes good. And the only way you can defend yourself is to denigrate any part of Scripture where it presents God doing what you find personally "not good".
"PROVE IT. This is literally YOUR subjective and unproven human opinion. Jesus never said that and even if he did (which he didn't), you'd have to provide support as to why you think Jesus in that case was not being figurative."
But Jesus DID say that when He confirmed there is no one good but God. You've yet to prove He meant something else. So the problem is that it's YOUR opinion which needs proof. I'm simply taking Jesus at His word.
It just amazes me that the notion that you and your friends aren't truly "good" makes you wet yourself so. So....when can I expect to see you prove Jesus didn't mean what He said?
"Demonstrate some adult intellectual integrity."
Do you know what that even means? Clearly you don't.
"PROVE IT. I hate to be a broken record, but these inane, grade school, 1 inch deep thinking you're doing is always just your unproven opinions. You don't even TRY to support them objectively. You act as if your mere declaration of them says it all."
If Jesus didn't mean what He said, it's up to YOU to prove that's the case. I'm under no obligation to prove He meant what He said when what He said is so clear and unambiguous.
Why isn't enough for you to simply accept the truth that we're all sinners (something from Scripture...a book you really should seriously study), but can choose to do good to the best of our ability in every move we make? Once again, my proof is the words of Christ. Prove He meant something other than there is no one good but God. If you can do that...and you can't or else you would have done so with Scripture...I may be compelled to alter my position.
"JESUS is recorded as saying, "You will know good people by their actions..." "
That's not what He said. You've used this several times now and not once cited the chapter and verse. You do this often when the true meaning of a verse, passage or concept doesn't really say what you expect a reader to believe it says. Matt 7:15-23 speaks of those like you who think a few good deeds means you're right with God, while at the same time promoting that which He prohibits. Its speaks of those who are faithful to God, rather than simply those who help little old ladies across the street.
Why must I, as it's far more self-evidently true than anything about which you've presented as self-evidently true.
Why must you prove your claims that you make about your opinions which you are saying are NOT your opinions, but objective facts?
Because you're the one making the outrageous claim. You are the one who is claiming that there are no good people, in spite of the evidence of reality. You are the one who is redefining Good in a non-standard manner as your only support for your unsupported claim.
Because that's how rational adults have discussions - if and when they make outlandish, silly-on-the-face-of-it claims, they know as rational adults they need to either support it or admit they can't.
If Jesus didn't mean what He said, it's up to YOU to prove that's the case.
Jesus literally said on the one hand, "No one is good but God" AND Jesus literally said on the other hand, "there are good people... ("the good person brings forth good"). That the Bible records Jesus saying both things is not in question. The question is, HOW do we reconcile these two opposite claims?
HOW do we reconcile Jesus saying "No one is good but God" AND at the same time citing the reality of good people? AND, at the same time, recognizing the reality that we can SEE that there are good people...?
Now, YOU choose to do it with your theory that actual goodness can only be understood to be perfection and if you're not perfect as an almighty God, you're not good. But it's just your empty claim. You nor anyone is providing objective proof that this is what Jesus and God REALLY think, even while Jesus/God acknowledge the reality of good people, as recorded in the Bible.
WHY is it not possible that Jesus is using hyperbole in the passage in question? WHY is it not possible - likely even - that Jesus is speaking figuratively there, to make a point (the point being the rather obvious one that No one is good... AS GOD... duh.)?
And you keep bringing up - with NO support - your human theory (doesn't really rise to the level of a theory, more of a wild hunch) that people who are good are only good in comparison to other people and THAT is the only sense in which they're good... These are examples of unsupported, irrational and ridiculous claims that you make with no support.
You support your ideas and claims, when one makes them, because that's what it means to have a rational adult conversation.
Are you even going to TRY to support your claims (which you can't do) OR will you have the intellectual integrity to admit that these are your personal unsupported subjective opinions which you can in no way prove?
Marshal:
You've used this several times now and not once cited the chapter and verse
It's a common verse, one which YOU already admitted you knew. I remind you of one of "several times" I cited the passage:
"Just as Jesus noted: We will know good trees by their good fruit and we can know good people by their good actions and lives."
And your response:
Ironically, the actual verse in which "knowing a tree" is referenced speaks of your kind...but not in a way you'll like.
It's a common verse that you know. That I didn't cite the passage doesn't mean anything. You are well aware of the passage... and you choose it to make an attack and be the Accuser, once again, without any support, once again.
It's what Accusers do.
But I'm asking you to NOT be an Accuser, but to engage in rational, respectful adult conversation. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you can do so. You keep choosing not to.
You support claims you make to show by your "fruit" that you're good, rational and respectful. You keep choosing to NOT show by your fruit that you're good, rational and respectful.
Given the passage which you're well aware of and what it says, what does that say about you?
Can we know Marshal by his fruit?
Craig is leading the chorus of the Thugs who are again claiming that Jesus isn’t all that centrally interested in good people doing good things. You have provoked them, Dan, repeatedly these past many days. Perhaps in some desperately subconscious need to absolve themselves for their glaringly unconscious thrill to brutality — so much so that they cannot quit Trump even if all of them except Marshal dislike him. The fact that now 300 Republican officials from Bush and Trump administrations support Harris because Trump is unfit to be President speaks volumes about their Will to be vile. So they need to believe that Jesus does not favor “doing good deeds” above some Hermetic Christian ideology that Craig cannot name. They want a Christian coven, not world encompassing brotherly love.
Time once again to show how Craig simply cannot comprehend the whole of what Jesus teaches. About doing good, it seems at least Matthew thought Jesus considered it... everything.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”
None of them have ever read and grasped the whole of the New Testament. The Thugs have only been indoctrinated into a cult that cannot, ever, deliver the freedom and love and sacrificial grace of the Triune god: Father, Son… and particularly the Holy Spirit, who, despite their disdain for the Spirit, is greater than their book idol.
"Why must you prove your claims that you make about your opinions which you are saying are NOT your opinions, but objective facts?"
First of all, you asserting I've my claims are mere opinions obliges and requires you to prove they're not the facts I assert they are. I haven't presented them as "opinions".
Secondly, it was you who set the precedent one is not required to prove any claim asserted to be "self-evident" or something "everybody knows".
"Because you're the one making the outrageous claim."
I've made no "outrageous" claims, nor have you proven any claim I've made is.
"You are the one who is claiming that there are no good people, in spite of the evidence of reality."
I'm not claiming anything Scripture hasn't affirmed. The only reality which matters is that which is supported by the evidence of Scriptural teaching, where the claim is made.
" You are the one who is redefining Good in a non-standard manner as your only support for your unsupported claim."
I'm not "redefining" "good". I'm accepting Jesus' definition as the actual definition, and the "standard manner" you prefer to be "human tradition", which is a far, far truer manifestation of your favorite expression than your routine equivocating, deflecting use of it.
"Because that's how rational adults have discussions - if and when they make outlandish, silly-on-the-face-of-it claims, they know as rational adults they need to either support it or admit they can't."
I'm always amused when you condescend to use words like "rational" as if you're the rational one. But if I was indeed irrational, then I wouldn't regard anything I say as "outlandish, silly-on-the-face-of-it claims". In any case, I support everything I say, except where I've said an already supported claim for the fifteenth time. But rational adults don't accuse their debate opponents or their opponent's claims of being irrational without providing solid evidenced-based support proving those claims as such. You don't do this. You simply disparage your opponent and/or his claims as "irrational". If any claim is irrational, outrageous or whatever other insulting term you choose to use, it should be a very simple thing to prove it isn't actually true as the claimant says it is. Your attempts fail to do this, so you default to insult...while threatening to delete me for not being civil enough for you.
Rational adults have a give and take, each side stepping up to support their positions. It's not one side doing the heavy lifting while you make more and more demands and then threatening and ultimately deleting on some flimsy premise...true bullying of which you accused me of doing at my blog.
"Jesus literally said on the one hand, "No one is good but God" AND Jesus literally said on the other hand, "there are good people... ("the good person brings forth good"). That the Bible records Jesus saying both things is not in question. The question is, HOW do we reconcile these two opposite claims?"
That's easy. First, they're not "opposite claims". They're two disparate statements, each being true. In the first, Jesus asserts there is no one good but God. Setting aside the many verses which affirm this, we can look to the second one and see He's not talking about any specific person. (Go ahead...name that specific person). He's talking about what a good person does. That is, he's describing what a good person looks like...how a good person behaves. He's not referring to a particular individual at all.
So when you decide to cite passages where those like Noah or Job are said to be "good" or "righteous", doing so doesn't diminish any of the other verses or passages which speak of the sinful nature of mankind. They are "good" as compared to those around them. We know this because only God is good. When you said we're to weigh all aspects of Scripture against the words of Jesus, but then reject what He says because of other parts of Scripture, you're contradicting yourself and corrupting the standard methodology of how one is to interpret what appears to be conflicting teachings. YOU were the one who put the higher value on the words of Jesus, but now you subordinate His words to other verses. Not consistent. Not adult. Not rational. Actually, it's not a little bit dishonest at worst, and a poor example of "reasoning" at best.
" AND, at the same time, recognizing the reality that we can SEE that there are good people...?"
We reconcile this with the obvious reality...all are sinners but among us are those who seek to do good. It's not hard, Dan.
"Now, YOU choose to do it with your theory that actual goodness can only be understood to be perfection and if you're not perfect as an almighty God, you're not good. But it's just your empty claim. You nor anyone is providing objective proof that this is what Jesus and God REALLY think, even while Jesus/God acknowledge the reality of good people, as recorded in the Bible."
It's notable that you again, like the serpent, question what God/Jesus really said...that the record of Christ's words is somehow difficult to understand, as if it's cryptic or, as you so desperately need to believe, figurative. But as has been demonstrated, your attempts to back up that premise fail completely.
"WHY is it not possible that Jesus is using hyperbole in the passage in question? WHY is it not possible - likely even - that Jesus is speaking figuratively there, to make a point (the point being the rather obvious one that No one is good... AS GOD... duh.)?"
Certainly anything is "possible". Less likely is what is probable. What can be proven? Can you prove Jesus was speaking figuratively? No. You can't. But I'm not obliged to prove He meant what He said, for taking Him at His word is the starting point, and all else proceeds from that. Jesus said "no one is good but God". We can stop there and believe He meant exactly that, because why shouldn't we? Or we can put in some effort to find evidence that He didn't mean it at all. Your attempt to suppose He meant no one is as good "as" God is not at all indicated by the passage itself. It's imposed upon it by you and others who, for reasons not likely to be honest, prefer it not to be the case. Again...I'm perfectly fine with the concept and accept it wholeheartedly. "Good" is an absolutely term. Either something or someone is good or something or someone is not. There's no "almost as good as God". Yet we can still use the word to contrast one person against another without pretending we're God-like. There's no harm or sin in that, but clearly and irrationally, it ain't good enough for you. More to the point, to proclaim another as "a good man", and to hear that person boldly agree that he is immediately calls his character into question. I would expect anyone who is so referred would demur, honest enough to acknowledge...if only to himself...that he isn't good at all, but only striving to be so...because He is, and that's what we're supposed to do.
The "POINT" is no one is good but God. We know this because Jesus said so. No "interpretation" required.
"And you keep bringing up - with NO support - your human theory (doesn't really rise to the level of a theory, more of a wild hunch) that people who are good are only good in comparison to other people and THAT is the only sense in which they're good... These are examples of unsupported, irrational and ridiculous claims that you make with no support."
No. These are truths informed by Scripture and supported perfectly with it. YOUR hunch...not a hunch, really, but a rank heresy...is that Scripture is full of crap and you know better than Christ.
"You support your ideas and claims, when one makes them, because that's what it means to have a rational adult conversation."
Truly rational adults accept that I've supported my position and instead of demonizing, disparaging and dismissing, make pains to demonstrate beyond any doubt (to the greatest extent possible) that a better understanding of the verses in question exists.
" Are you even going to TRY to support your claims (which you can't do) OR will you have the intellectual integrity to admit that these are your personal unsupported subjective opinions which you can in no way prove?"
Already done comprehensively and to an extent beyond your impotent abilities to overcome...or else you wouldn't continue with this petulant demand I do what's been done.
Give it up. Neither you nor any of those anonymous people you cite are truly "good", but only people who strive to do good. In your case, and I insist because of your "my tribe" comments, these people you cite as well, are clearly not good because of the evil you enable, regardless of any good works. You specifically, and those you cite as examples of good, because you present them as being like you or of your tribe, are those of whom Christ speaks in Matt 7:21-23.
Unlike you, I have little problem taking Jesus/God at His word, or taking Scripture as written, not pretending there's any difficulty in determining when to take something literally or not. But then, for those of us not keen on legitimizing prohibited behaviors, we're under no pressure to impose ambiguity where it doesn't exist.
" It's a common verse that you know. That I didn't cite the passage doesn't mean anything. You are well aware of the passage... and you choose it to make an attack and be the Accuser, once again, without any support, once again."
Yes. A well known verse, You didn't cite chapter and verse because it's easier to abuse without doing so, which you do here. Craig gives a good summary at his blog, but the passage in which this concept appears provides a warning against false prophets. The focus is on those to whom Christ will say, "I never knew you. Away from me, evildoers!" that which begins in verse 21 of Matt 7 gets more specific in referring to those who do good works, often in His name, yet do evil as well. Such today would be those who do good works while enabling sexually immoral behavior, infanticide and other misdeeds common to the progressive "Christian".
But still, He does not identify any specifically "good" people, but references what a "good" person would look like, and they aren't those who indulge in or enable sinful behaviors, as you do.
"But I'm asking you to NOT be an Accuser, but to engage in rational, respectful adult conversation."
I'm imperfect, but I'm in no way akin to Satan. So be rational, respectful and adult and stop doing that. To point out sinfulness in another is not unChristian at all.
"I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you can do so. You keep choosing not to."
I choose to let loose only after having endured your dishonesty, condescension and abuses of Scripture. There's nothing "adult" in your behaving as you do, be it here or elsewhere.
"You support claims you make to show by your "fruit" that you're good, rational and respectful. You keep choosing to NOT show by your fruit that you're good, rational and respectful."
Sez you.
"Given the passage which you're well aware of and what it says, what does that say about you?"
Well, I'm nothing at all like a false prophet. At worst, I'm a poor example of what a Christian should be. But I've never claimed otherwise, so it's not speaking of me at all. But I'm faithful to the Truth of Christ's teachings and God's Will, even when I act badly. That is, unlike you, I don't redefine "righteousness" or "good" to exclude sinful behaviors I might indulge, nor do I enable others in acting badly. I'm faithful.
But one needn't guess about "my fruit". I don't pretend.
Better get to it, Marshal. Like today; you sound very much like you’re in jeopardy. Or do you not believe everything in your book idol?
“… he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’
Marshal:
you asserting I've my claims are mere opinions obliges and requires you to prove they're not the facts I assert they are. I haven't presented them as "opinions".
I don't know how to help you understand how civil, adult rational discussions take place. YOU are the one making an outlier claim - at least two ("There are NO good people..." and "The only way to be TRULY Good is to be perfect...") - the onus is on you to support the claims.
I'm telling you that in the real world, in all of the known heavens and earths and seas and skies, in all of history, there is simply NO PROOF that there are "no good people" and "the only way to truly be good is to be as perfect as God." Now, I'm stating that as an objective fact and that's fine for me to do so. What I mean by that is the reality that I've never seen any such data to support the claim - and I've looked. Not dissimilar to the scientist who says as a point of fact - I've seen no data to suggest there are purple unicorns on the dark side of the moon and, so, as a point of fact, they do NOT exist.
That's my claim. Now ALL you have to do is provide some - EVEN ONE BIT - of objective facts to support the claim that actually, there ARE NO good people on the earth and that the "real" definition of Good is "Perfect."
The onus is on YOU to provide data to contravene the known, observable and established facts in this case.
You merely stating "When Jesus said there is no one good, he was redefining good to mean perfect." is not objective fact, it is literally a subjective opinion.
I truly don't know how else to explain this to you and I know it probably sounds condescending, as if I'm talking to a kindergarten child, but that's just the way it is. Your personal interpretations do NOT make for objective facts.
Consider: The Psalmist in Psalm 58 says:
Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.
Now, the literalist might be tempted to do what you're doing: The verse says that even from the day they're born, the wicked go astray and they spread lies...
But reality contravenes that. Newborns don't talk and don't have the capacity to form lies or spread falsehoods (that takes GOP presidents, at least to do it really well!) NO RATIONAL PERSON NEEDS A VERSE TO TELL US, "Umm... newborns can't spread lies." REALITY Contradicts the claim. It is exceedingly stupid to try to demand the passage should be taken literally. It would be exceedingly ridiculous and irrational to demand, "Well, the Psalmist is redefining lies to mean, poop in their diapers, THAT's the true meaning of lie, now!"
No, it is on the face of it, clearly figurative language, hyperbole or otherwise. Regardless of what the rest of the Bible may say.
So, you're faced with two problems, IF you want to answer this problem of yours as a rational adult: You need to provide objective data that Jesus meant that line literally and that Jesus literally redefined Good. AND, you need to deal with the problem of the reality of actually good people. NOT comparatively good people, but good people as Good is understood.
So, unless you come back with OBJECTIVE PROOF - unmistakable data to support your claims OR unless you come back with an apology for being obtuse and an admission that, of course, you have no objective data to disprove the reality of good people, don't bother commenting further.
And once again: You saying, "but there is a verse..." is not objective proof. It's just not.
That was me, Dan.
Marshal, you have ONE task: TO either admit that these are you personal subjective human opinions (the reality) OR to provide objective support for your human hunches. You've failed and thereby demonstrated clearly that you have ZERO objective support for your irrational, unsupported and slightly nutty human hunches.
Move on. Thanks for answering by not answering.
I repeat:
Marshal, you have ONE task: TO either admit that these are you personal subjective human opinions (the reality) OR to provide objective support for your human hunches. You've failed and thereby demonstrated clearly that you have ZERO objective support for your irrational, unsupported and slightly nutty human hunches.
Move on. Thanks for answering by not answering.
I reject the assumption that “christian” has anything to do with the politics of now.
Unless the half of us that rage as Christians will stipulate that their faith is the same one that gathered for family picnics at lynchings.
Marshal, you are a very vulgar and in many ways, a very bad man. I hope you'll learn to do and be better. May you find the light of God and kindness and love and decency within you. Failing that, may you learn the wisdom to just shut up.
Your vulgarity and overtly hostile hatred and mean-ness make me weary. There are too many people in the world who try too hard to tear down, destory and intentionally, overtly try to be bad. My prayers for you are that you would lose your bitter hatred and vile anger and stupidly inane bile.
Be better. For your own sake, if nothing else.
Marshal is totally depraved. Good god, Dan, what! are you?
Of course, that's a great point, Feodor. It's like they don't even listen to their OWN words, much less Jesus'. I deleted Marshal's vulgar comment to which you were responding because of his hateful and bigoted attacks against people he doesn't even know.
Marshal claimed to be “better” than you. Either he really doesn’t believe in total depravity or he doesn’t know what “total” means. I think he knows what it means, but he doesn’t know that he really doesn’t believe in his 17th century fetish.
Right. It seems like a self-defeating argument. IF you are truly "totally depraved," as you claim (Marshal, et al) then why would any rational adult give your opinions any validity or time?
No doubt, their response would be,
"But it's not ME saying that humanity is totally depraved. It's what I - a totally depraved human... depraved in every part of my being with a mind incapable of understanding God on my own - am saying that I, in my depraved mind, think that God thinks... indeed, I KNOW it's what God thinks as an absolute fact, because there's a line in the Bible that suggests that to me, the fella who is totally depraved..."
You know, though, maybe that's the answer. Maybe they know of which they're speaking when they say THEY are totally depraved. Maybe they are right and in their total depravity, THIS is what they think a god of perfect love and justice is like. It IS rather a depraved notion of what a perfect Almighty God would be like.
And a totally depraved person might assume the same for everyone else. "If I am totally depraved with a darkened mind and a rebellious heart, hostile to God in every way... then every other human must be the same way, in spite of the evidence."
That would explain a lot.
The tortured nature of their thinking, the blind compartmentalizations, is the result of having been taught to read their idol bible with the eyes of judgment and sectarian arguments. You and I were taught the same thing. It’s the legacy of the religious wars of Europe - white on white Christian violence that killed 10+ million people. And which birthed the religious/capitalist colonization of the Western Hemisphere.
The thugs are still fighting the theology and rhetoric causes of those wars.
And so are 60+ million US voters. Which is why we’re losing decades of progress and a million more lives since the rise of the facetiously self-praising “moral” “majority.”
Marshal made some rude comments with no support, including:
You two are really torturing the concept. You have no idea what the term "totally depraved" means in the context of Christian teaching.
Prove it. Support your claim. WHAT do we not understand about total depravity?
It's not enough to just blindly lash out and stupidly attack. Not here. You need to support your claims.
I do not claim to any perfection. It IS possible I'm not understanding something. But you making a claim that I don't understand is nothing. Less than nothing.
You remain welcome to comment here if you want to engage in polite, respectful adult conversations.
Post a Comment