It's been asserted that it's possible to tell which people are "good people" by observing some of their public behavior. If this is true, then it should be easy to come up with a list of good people, right? It's just a random list, I'll probably add as I think of more.
I'll start a list and y'all can vote good/not good if you want. I'm sticking to people who are in the public sphere, because putting Uncle Bob would be stupid.
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
John Adams
Alexander Hamilton
Dwight Eisenhower
Harry Truman
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Thatcher
Joan of Arc
Ghandi
John Perkins
Martin Luther King Jr
John Knox
Jonathan Edwards
Golda Mier
Margaret Sanger
Charles Darwin
Billy Graham
Clarence Thomas
JFK
Madonna
Katy Perry
Taylor Swift
Martin Luther
Mother Theresa
John Paul II
Jeffery Epstein
John Wayne
Marilyn Monroe
Hugh Hefner
Nelson Mandela
Che Guevera
Neil Armstrong
Coretta Scott King
Malala
Michelle Obama
Helen Keller
Anne Frank
Princess Diana
Marie Curie
Anne Richards
Anne Graham Lotz
Joni Earickson Tada
Tammy Baker
Joanna Gaines
Vera Mae Perkins
Kanye West
Kim Kardashian
Mia Khalifa
Dana Loesch
Allie Stuckey
That's plenty for now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
I don't know that picking a bunch of public personalities is the best way to find good people - especially politicians - but here:
MLK was a good man. He fought for civil rights for an oppressed people. He did so by embracing NVDA, so he did not engage in deadly attacks to fight back against real oppression. He looked to Jesus' words and teachings and found hints of ways to embrace non-violent change agents.
He was an imperfect man, to be sure, and I don't know enough about his personal day to day life to fully endorse him, but at a casual observation, I'd say he was a good man doing good work in a very trying time - ofttimes opposed bitterly by conservative Christians and a hostile government.
Did he engage in affairs and was he sexist, and therefore, imperfect? Yes (well, I don't know about the affairs, but it's been alleged). But perfection is not my (or anyone's) measure of "good." (and for the record, sometimes, I'd have capitalized Good in that last sentence because I am talking about the word. Probably quotation marks are the better option but when I'm typing or dictating on my phone, that's more difficult to accomplish, so a capital Good serves that purpose in this context...). Although, I suspect that's what it comes down to for you: If you're not perfect, then you're not good.
Is that your belief system? Why you're so hostile towards and skeptical of the good people in the world?
Anyway, so far as I know, King committed no serious physical harm to others, or oppressed others. He was a man of his day and I'd be willing to bet probably fairly sexist. He no doubt was likely opposed to gay folk, like most people and Christians of his day. So, not perfect, but probably a pretty good man.
Or, perhaps even better in your list, how about Jimmy Carter. What a good man! I have seen no serious evidence or suggestions that say he's anything but a good, decent human being. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
But that's a guess about someone I don't know, personally. I'd rather talk about the good people I DO know and can attest to their goodness on a first hand basis. Or the good people YOU know (I hope you know some good people, you tell me).
Why do you fight so much against this? Why do you feel the need to slander people you don't even know? To assume the worst about people you don't know?
Is it the case that you truly have been surrounded so much by bad people that you don't even believe in the possibility?
Or are you so confused by your allegiance to your dogma that you assume that everyone is hiding some great evils and that a lack of perfection equals "bad" for you?
Also, why is your list so male-centric? Why not Coretta Scott King? Why not Malala? Why not Michelle Obama? Why not Helen Keller or Annie Sullivan?
Do you have reason to believe that none of these were good people?
That's plenty for now.
So, out of that whole list, you can come up with 2 that (equivocally) meet your subjective criteria for “good”, that’s telling, I think.
As I pointed out, it would be pointless to make a random list of private individuals, as I further pointed out, it’s an incomplete list and as such can be added to. As far as male/female balance, it’s just a random list of whoever popped into my head. I tried to avoid the obvious “bad” people. But as far as women, there’s nothing nefarious, just had to stop someplace.
“Is that your belief system? Why you're so hostile towards and skeptical of the good people in the world?”
Nothing about this list or the exercise is any comment on my belief system, nor is it hostile or skeptical. It’s simply an thought experiment.
No, I have no evidence to suggest anything otherwise.
Since I’m not fighting, slandering, or assuming anything about anyone, I see no point in dignifying your questions with answers as that simply legitimizes your absurd questions.
No.
No.
It’s interesting that you’ve chosen to draw such negative conclusions from a list of names and a thought exercise.
Your questions are answered and the heinous imbalance is better than it was.
It’s close to 50/50 now, I hope that satisfies your need for a quota.
I’m surprised that you seem to think that adding more women will change something.
re: "That's telling..."
1. I have never said that ALL people are good. I've been quite clear there are bad people in the world. Your president, for instance ("your," meaning the conservatives' president, the white evangelicals who put him there's president).
Do you recognize that?
What it tells you is that I don't know these people personally or well enough to fairly assess it. That's all. It's not "telling" you anything else.
Katy Perry? Know nothing about her. Ask me if she's a good person, I'll tell you I don't know her. Same for most of the people on your list. I responded about the two I know most about.
2. You're asking me about a bunch of people whom I don't know well. These people MAY be good, I just don't know enough about them. They are certainly a mix of good and bad, I'm sure, because we all are that. Observably so.
3. The reason it makes sense to ask about people we know personally is because we know them personally. I can attest that I know a large number of reasonably good people (i.e., people who would be recognized as good by reasonable, unbiased persons who know them). But by all means, just look at people YOU know. Do you not know some people that reasonable observers would call "good?"
4. What would be your criteria for saying, for instance, that Jimmy Carter is not a good man? Or that his wife is not a good person? Is it anything non-whimsical? Anything substantive?
I suspect it's either an appeal to the notion that "they're not good because they are not perfect" or "...not God." But that's a different question.
Ask me if I know any perfect people. I'll tell you No. Ask me if I know anyone who is perfectly "God." I'll tell you know.
But that's a different question in the English language than "Do you know any good people?"
What’s interesting is that you’ve been very insistent that you are able to determine if “people” (people as opposed to people’s actions) are good based on your observations of the parts of their behavior that you observe.
Yet, when given a chance to demonstrate, you demur. You come up with reasons why you can’t. You say that it’d be easier if the people you evaluated were anonymous to the rest of us. So, yes it’s telling that you are so hesitant to do what you were so confident of being able to do.
1. I never made or intimated that you said anything of the sort. As you know, we both consider our president to be less than good. Are you saying that you know our president better than Katy Perry?
I must have missed the part where I required that you comment on everyone on the list. It’s interesting that for a musician as popular and ubiquitous as she has been for the last decade, that you know do little.
2. Again, you were very adamant that you can identify good people, I’m simply giving you the opportunity to do what you seemed so confident of being able to do earlier.
3. What you appear to be saying is that your ability to know which people are good is only limited to those you know personally. That’s interesting and depending on your response I’ll dive deeper.
4. In human terms he appears to be a reasonably good man. When you ask hostile questions based on assumptions, the results are rarely going to be good,
But, I haven’t asked any of those questions, I’ve asked the question I’ve asked. This might seem strange to you, but at my blog I can ask the questions I want to ask no matter how uncomfortable they make you.
Given you usual willingness to identify people you think are not good (insert expletive laden personal attack here), your hesitation to identify people you’d say are good is puzzling to say the least. The fact that you’ve come up with more reasons why you won’t that with identifying those you deem Good, is quite a conundrum.
If this post was about allowing you to waltz in and dictate the questions I should be asking, rather than addressing what’s on the topic of this post, that might be reasonable. But it’s not.
It’s interes that you’re so focused on shifting everything away from this very simple exercise. When you go to this much effort to shift away from something so simple, it makes me wonder...
You’re very determined to not identify the good people on this list, very determined. Likewise, I’m determined to keep the focus on what’s in this post.
So, yes it’s telling that you are so hesitant to do what you were so confident of being able to do.
I'm appealing to people YOU know. Do you not know good people?
I never said I could prove that people I don't know are good people. Thus, your claim that I was "confident" of being able to do that is just stupidly false, fyi. That is rather a silly claim.
I identified Jimmy Carter as someone most reasonable people would reasonably identify as Good. Do you have hunches that he isn't good? Based on what data?
Craig... your hesitation to identify people you’d say are good is puzzling to say the least.
My dad. My mom. My pastor. My wife. At least half of my friends at church.
I'm hesitant to assert positively that people I DON'T KNOW are good people is puzzling?
I tend to want to speak from a place of knowledge rather than ignorance and MORE informed knowledge rather than less informed ignorance.
Having said that, I just don't know most people on your list well enough to have an opinion. I don't know their daily lives, their attitudes, their regular behaviors, etc. Why is that puzzling to you?
For the people I know OF fairly well, I'd say that Michelle Obama, Jimmy Carter, MLK, Helen Keller, Coretta Scott King, Anne Frank, Malala, Gandhi... ALL these seem like good people to me.
Do you have any reason (i.e., DATA, FACTS) to think they're not good people?
So now you are saying that you can’t determine which people are “good” or “not good” (as they’re two sides of the same coin, and if you can’t know a public person well enough to call them good, the logic dictates you can’t do the reverse) unless you personally know them.
That’s great, especially since it renders the decision even more subjective and based on your prejudices than with public figures.
Of course, I never said you claimed you could “prove” that people are good. Fortunately for me I never asked for proof.
Now, if you’d like I can copy/paste quotes from you adamantly asserting that you are confident that a) people are good, and b) that you can identity good people. Would that be helpful?
You see, when you alter my questions it really doesn’t help you cause very much.
I’ve never said one thing about the “goodness” of Jimmy Carter. I’ve asked questions about identifying people on a random list who are “good”. Now, as usual with these kinds of posts, I don’t comment until after others have chimed it because I’m looking for other people’s responses untainted by mine.
It’s puzzling to me because you never even hinted that your ability to identify good people was so limited. I guess this gives me one important piece of data. That you aren’t willing to make determinations of good/not good about people you don’t personally know. That’s interesting but incredibly limited. This caveat also increases the subjectivity of your conclusion, because you presumably like these people (perhaps even love them), and it’s sometimes hard to be objective about people we’re fond of. It’s a human trait that we all share.
You kept asking different questions than the one I’ve asked.
Perhaps you don’t understand that I’m trying to gain information on one particular thing, and that by introducing other things beyond that it obscures what I’m hoping to learn.
I do think that your responses have been revealing in a couple of areas. But I’ll be patient before I talk about my opinions.
as they’re two sides of the same coin, and if you can’t know a public person well enough to call them good, the logic dictates you can’t do the reverse...
That would be your logic, I reckon, but not mine. If someone is an abuser - a serial abuser - of women or of children, they are not good people. I've always been quite clear that there are bad people in the world, that hasn't changed. And IF we can observe someone's bad actions or attitudes - the white supremacist who has caused physical harm to people - it is reasonable to say that this is not a good person or that they are, indeed, a bad person. A person who has committed seriously bad acts, and especially in a serial manner, can reasonably be deemed "not good."
Do you disagree? Based on what?
I'm glad you think my responses have been "revealing" but given your history of not understanding my words, I wouldn't count on the accuracy of your "revelations." I would hope that my responses would be revealing, but your history is just not great.
For instance... if you’d like I can copy/paste quotes from you adamantly asserting that you are confident that a) people are good, and b) that you can identity good people.
I have NOT said that I can identify good people when I don't know them.
I am confident that there are good people because I KNOW SOME. And I expect you do, too, although you seem reluctant to admit as much. I have not said that I can just look at just anyone and reasonably accurately assess their goodness based on snatches of data.
re: "as usual on these kinds of posts..." you almost never clarify your position.
Man up, boy. Take a stand. DO YOU THINK that Jimmy Carter is a bad man? If so, based upon what data?
DO YOU or do you not know any good people?
That you aren’t willing to make determinations of good/not good about people you don’t personally know.
Again, why is this strange to you? Why would I NOT be more in a position to state with more confidence someone is good if I know them and know them well, over and against someone I know relatively little about?
This is just reasonable.
Do you disagree?
Re: "YOu keep asking different questions..."
Name one.
So, you can accurately determine if a person is not good without knowing them personally with what 95% accuracy, but you’re too what (scared, timid, cautious, unsure of your powers of observation) to do so.
I agree that you claiming you can judge one type of person from afar, but not another is a convenient display of a level of humility that you usually don’t show. The point is that you claim that your inability to know is why you won’t give your opinions about good people, but your ability to know from afar is spot on with the bad ones
You can’t decide if Joan of Arc was a good person, but you’re 100% ready to tell me that I’m lying, all the while ignoring my answering every one of your questions.
One. “Do you think Jimmy Carter is a bad man.”.
I love it when you make it so easy to prove you wrong.
It’s unusual because you’re usually very quick to pass judgement on who’s good or not. Hell, just the other day you announced that Dr A was a “good person” based on some true, but selective, information I gave you. Making that judgement about someone you didn’t know wasn’t a problem then.
you can accurately determine if a person is not good without knowing them personally with what 95% accuracy, but you’re too what (scared, timid, cautious, unsure of your powers of observation) to do so.
? IF we know someone, then we are in a pretty good spot to assess their nature, if they are a good person or not. If we know someone well, we're in an even better position to assess their nature. If we barely know someone, we're in a less qualified position to assess their nature. If we only know about someone - say, a political figure from 100 years ago, we only know them as well as we know their biography, which is helpful but limited. If we don't know someone at all, then we are not in any position to assess their nature.
From all I know about the historical figures, Ann Frank, Helen Keller or MLK, they seem to be pretty good people, based on the limited bit we know about them. Most people would probably assess them as generally good people, based on what we know.
Now, if it turned out that Anne Frank were secretly a Nazi who married Hitler and personally killed 1000 Jewish people, then we could re-assess our estimation of Anne Frank. But, based on what we know, she seems like a good person. In the meantime, based on what we know, why would I think these people are NOT good people?
Is there any data to suggest a claim that they were actually BAD people? If so, what is it?
On the other hand, I know my wife, my pastor and many of my church and work friends VERY well, and I'm even more able to assess the question: Do their lives meet the definition of "good person," as we understand the notion? And yes, yes, they do.
So, if they meet the dictionary definition of what we normally think of as "good," why would I not assess them to be good people? Based on what data would I make a claim that they are actually bad people?
Do you think there is something odd about the notion that the better we know a person, the more adept we are at recognizing their nature and if they are a good or bad person?
More questions for you to dodge, ignore, twist.
You can’t decide if Joan of Arc was a good person, but you’re 100% ready to tell me that I’m lying
I am just not that familiar with Joan of Arc's story. Or how about Allie Stuckey, who I do not know at all, not in the least? That name has no meaning to me. Do you think it's odd that I am not able to give an estimation of her character?
On the other hand, when you make an observable false claim, then is it truly odd to you that I can say, "Hey! He made a false claim..."? What in the world are you going on about?
And, in this post, have I "100% told you that you're lying..."?
Conversations with you just get stranger and stranger, as if you're responding to an unseen person writing unseen words and then you respond to the unseen instead of my actual words.
Who are you addressing in your comments here?
“In the meantime, based on what we know, why would I think these people are NOT good people?
Is there any data to suggest a claim that they were actually BAD people? If so, what is it?”
I’ve not suggested anything about these people, I’m hoping you can use your ability to discern “good” to give your opinions. Clearly this concept is too challenging for you to grasp.
“So, if they meet the dictionary definition of what we normally think of as "good," why would I not assess them to be good people? Based on what data would I make a claim that they are actually bad people?”
I’ve never suggested that they are bad people. You seem to be assuming this despite my repeated corrections. Are you obtuse or stupid?
“Do you think there is something odd about the notion that the better we know a person, the more adept we are at recognizing their nature and if they are a good or bad person?”
Not necessarily, I’m just exploring this ability you seem to have in identifying good people, this seems to confuse you.
You can’t decide if Joan of Arc was a good person, but you’re 100% ready to tell me that I’m lying
“I am just not that familiar with Joan of Arc's story. Or how about Allie Stuckey, who I do not know at all, not in the least? That name has no meaning to me. Do you think it's odd that I am not able to give an estimation of her character?”
You demanded more women on the list, you got more women. I guess the concept of only responding to the ones you know of is just a bit too challenging. I do love how your narcissism leads you to think it’s all about you and only you.
“And, in this post, have I "100% told you that you're lying..."?”
What, your previous comments are exempt from being used as an example? I guess in your world it’s ok to tell me that I’m lying, as long as it’s not in this post.
“Conversations with you just get stranger and stranger, as if you're responding to an unseen person writing unseen words and then you respond to the unseen instead of my actual words.”
Yes, it’s my secret commenter.
“Who are you addressing in your comments here?”
So far, just you. Just demonstrably answering all your questions, and watching you behave predictably.
Dan,
When you pull out the “you don’t answer my questions” whiny trope, in a thread where I’ve answered virtually every question you’ve asked (if I answer a question and you ask it again, I’m not going to answer it because it’s already been answered), it makes you look more foolish than usual.
Much like when you keep repeating the same, lame trope when I’ve explained multiple times why I’m being selective about which questions I answer.
It’s almost like you are responding out of reflex without actually reading what you’re responding to.
I’ve never suggested that they are bad people. You seem to be assuming this despite my repeated corrections. Are you obtuse or stupid?
No, I'm not assuming you think they're bad. I'm asking you the question, Do you think they are good? Bad? If so, why?
You have, in the past, objected to the notion of good people. I'm asking if you think these folks are bad people, which seems to be a reasonable question, given your hunches about people not being good.
It's a question designed to elicit an answer. An answer to the question being asked.
Look, like this:
Dan: I think based on what we know that Anne Frank seemed like a good person. I have no reason to think she wasn't. Do you think Anne Frank was a good person? A bad person? I'm asking because in the past you've objected to the notion of good people.
Craig: "I've never suggested she was a bad person."
Dan: I never suggested you suggested she was a bad person. My question was NOT "Are you making the suggestion she's a bad person?" I'm asking, "Do you think she is a good person? A bad person? If you don't think she's good, why not/based on what?
Saying "I’ve never suggested she is bad" is not an answer to the question being asked.
Any chance of you asking the question directly?
Craig... I’m just exploring this ability you seem to have in identifying good people, this seems to confuse you.
I'm not confused. By using terms like "this ability to identify good people," you're making it sound like some bizarre claim. That is, YOU seem confused.
It's not a unique claim of mine or an ability unique to me. I assume YOU ALSO have "this ability" to identify good people. That is, you have a brain and the ability to observer and to make reasonable conclusions, do you not? THAT is what is required to form reasonable opinions about a person.
Do you disagree? Why does that seem to confuse you?
I guess in your world it’s ok to tell me that I’m lying, as long as it’s not in this post.
It has nothing to do with "my world." In the rational world, it's reasonable to note when someone makes a false claim. I tend to use that term (false claim) rather than lying, because I don't know what's going on in your head. You could be greatly confused and making a false claim that you don't know is false, so, I strive to say false claim. Probably most of the time - if not all of the time - with you, that is what I've said. Although, it is possible that I've used "lie" as shorthand for false claim.
You have not answered many/probably most of my questions, fyi. At least not directly.
I'd be curious to know what questions you think you HAVE answered.
In a hurry, and I really want to dive into all the comments. But the first one where Dan decides to pick a "good" man is MLK. He lists all the nice things he's done, a few bad things he hasn't done (really, really bad things), then pretty much dismisses allegations about his private life as if they have no bearing on whether or not he truly qualifies as good.
Then, because he can't help himself, he easily regards Trump as a "bad" man despite Trump never having engaged in any of the really, really bad things for which Dan seemed to suggest was a requirement in order to label MLK a "bad" man. By comparison, Trump has certainly done many good things, particularly as president...things that have benefited the same people MLK championed. They both spoke in terms of "all people" or "all Americans". This is true of MLK despite his fight for justice for the black man.
Their private lives are the main issue that mitigates their labeling as "good" men, with Trump's "private" life having been made more public, both by him and by others.
Dan's notion of "good" is purely subjective and not based on true notions of morality as presented in Scripture. He doesn't even agree with Scripture on what constitutes goodness. He defaults to a "no one's perfect" defense, but that only supports OUR position regarding man's sin nature. We're imperfect because of it. God is perfect, and thus, no one is good but God alone.
“No, I'm not assuming you think they're bad. I'm asking you the question, Do you think they are good? Bad? If so, why?”
I’ve addressed this at least once, I’m attempting to keep my opinions out of the conversation at this point to avoid this becoming an argument about what I think. But, maybe that’d be a way move the focus away from you and your ability to identify good people.
“Any chance of you asking the question directly?”
Any chance you’d pay attention when I’ve explained why I’m not bringing my opinions into the discussion yet? Do you not understand my explanation, or do you just choose to ignore it?
“”It's not a unique claim of mine or an ability unique to me. I assume YOU ALSO have "this ability" to identify good people. That is, you have a brain and the ability to observer and to make reasonable conclusions, do you not? THAT is what is required to form reasonable opinions about a person.”
You just spent a 100+ comment thread explaining you being able to identify good people. I’m not saying I don’t, I just haven’t spent dozens of comments talking about mine like you have.
“Do you disagree? Why does that seem to confuse you?”
Nope, it doesn’t confuse me at all. You’ve spent so much time talking about your ability, I’m trying to explore just exactly how far your ability extends.
“It has nothing to do with "my world." In the rational world, it's reasonable to note when someone makes a false claim. I tend to use that term (false claim) rather than lying, because I don't know what's going on in your head. You could be greatly confused and making a false claim that you don't know is false, so, I strive to say false claim. Probably most of the time - if not all of the time - with you, that is what I've said. Although, it is possible that I've used "lie" as shorthand for false claim.”
That makes absolutely no sense. You lying about others doesn’t seem to concern you particularly.
“You have not answered many/probably most of my questions, fyi. At least not directly. I'd be curious to know what questions you think you HAVE answered.”
What part of virtually all the questions you’ve asked in this thread are you too dense to comprehend? See, when you don’t read or pay attention you miss things.
But your attempt to drive this thread away from the topic is impressive as usual.
You just spent a 100+ comment thread explaining you being able to identify good people.
and...
You’ve spent so much time talking about your ability, I’m trying to explore just exactly how far your ability extends.
I've been talking in these last few posts about how WE, as humans, are able to observe and morally reason and identify good and bad people, given reasonable standards. It has nothing to do with me, individually. When you make comments like this, it sounds like you're misunderstanding and thinking it's somehow all about me. That was NEVER the intent of my posts or what I said. At all.
This has come up because many of you calvinists/evangelicals believe that humans are bad or corrupt. Even babies (am I right?) I'm not stating that "humanity is good." I'm stating simply that we as humans can recognize other humans as being good people, we do it all the time.
That's all, nothing more.
You lying about others doesn’t seem to concern you particularly.
Because I have not lied about others and you can't support this claim which is, itself, a false claim. Why does that not seem to concern you particularly?
That’s great. The fact remains they during those threads you’ve repeatedly used yourself as an example of being able to identify good people. I’m merely trying to get a handle on how you do it. Right now it seems more like refusing to identify good people, but whatever.
I know you’ve lied about me, and I’ve provided the quotes to demonstrate that fact. But like so much else, you’ll seem to ignore that which doesn’t fit your narrative. I’m not so much concerned with your lying, I’m used to it. What’s fascinating is that you don’t realize that by saying you “have not lied about others”, is most likely a lie.
Now comes the part where I demonstrate the demonstrable.
Dan claims this, "Because I have not lied about others..."
Yet, here we see a recent lie. "You can continue to demonize me and others if you don't answer the questions."
Dan,
I understand if this exercise makes you nervous or uncomfortable, perhaps suspicious. If any of those, or any of the other possible reasons, is the case you fortunately have some alternatives.
You could explain your reasons and decline to participate.
You could ignore the whole thing.
You could extend some grace and give it a shot.
Yet, you chose none of those. You chose to, sort of, participate. Then you chose to try to push the conversation off in other directions, seeming defensive at the same time. Then you finally decide to blame it on "Calvinists/evangelicals" and then continuing to assert that you (I'm assuming that you consider yourself part of the "we" you reference) recognize "good people" "all the time". So, despite that claim, you can't (or don't want to) go down a list of people and point out which ones you "recognize" as "good".
It seems as if "recognizing" "good people" is something that is done "all the time", then it should be easy and not problematic to do here, what you do "all the time".
Obviously this is much more difficult or concerning for you than it seems it should be.
This is such a weird conversation. It's why I'm not inclined to give you too much time.
My point is that you all suggest that there's no such thing as good people.
I point to reality and say that we all see good people in our lives all the time.
You respond (if you respond) with something like, "Sure, there are people who may do good actions, but they're not REALLY good..."
I respond with a request for you/yours to support your claim.
You all say you don't have to, or ignore the request or say something like "Mark 10" as if that settled the matter.
For those who point to Jesus in Mark 10 where Jesus said "there is no one good but God," other people would see good people in the world and recognize/theorize that Jesus was not suggesting there are literally NO good people. So, the question then becomes "Was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically in passages such as this?" The answer to that, then, can NOT be, "Well, Jesus said there was no one good so he must have meant it literally..." because that's the question begging fallacy.
As always and as this conversation began (for me), it was always about Support it.
1. Support the claim that there are no good people in the world;
2. that Jesus was offering a literal definition of "good;"
3. provide your definition for good, because it's not what we all know as "good" in the English language;
4. and provide support for why your definition of good is definitive and authoritative, if you think it is.
I'm still waiting for some support and answers to questions.
As to this...
here we see a recent lie. "You can continue to demonize me and others if you don't answer the questions."
This is, of course, not a lie. You regularly mock/demonize/discount folk like me in lieu of answering simple questions. It is an opinion and it sure seems to be true. I'll give you that I can't prove the intent of your heart, but by not answering questions directly, it allows you/people like you to attack straw man versions of what we're saying, instead of dealing with the actual questions.
Not a lie, not a false claim. An opinion, one you can't prove wrong and I can show how it can be right at least in theory (although, admittedly, I can't prove to be right, any more than you can prove to be wrong.). You have a history of ignoring questions or not answering the questions being asked of you or of making vague non-answers in response to questions instead of dealing with the questions directly.
That line was made in context in a response to how you're suggesting I'm twisting your positions when I've asked/was asking/continue to ask for you to simply clarify your position. Instead of dodging, instead of saying "I have reasons...," just answer questions. Be clear. Take a stand and clarify.
Be intellectually honest. When you are asked, be prepared to answer and answer respectfully.
I had to edit one of Dan's comments because part of it was off topic for this thread.
Here is the remainder.
"This is such a weird conversation. It's why I'm not inclined to give you too much time.
As to this...
here we see a recent lie. "You can continue to demonize me and others if you don't answer the questions."
This is, of course, not a lie. You regularly mock/demonize/discount folk like me in lieu of answering simple questions. It is an opinion and it sure seems to be true. I'll give you that I can't prove the intent of your heart, but by not answering questions directly, it allows you/people like you to attack straw man versions of what we're saying, instead of dealing with the actual questions.
Not a lie, not a false claim. An opinion, one you can't prove wrong and I can show how it can be right at least in theory (although, admittedly, I can't prove to be right, any more than you can prove to be wrong.). You have a history of ignoring questions or not answering the questions being asked of you or of making vague non-answers in response to questions instead of dealing with the questions directly.
That line was made in context in a response to how you're suggesting I'm twisting your positions when I've asked/was asking/continue to ask for you to simply clarify your position. Instead of dodging, instead of saying "I have reasons...," just answer questions. Be clear. Take a stand and clarify.
Be intellectually honest. When you are asked, be prepared to answer and answer respectfully."
"This is such a weird conversation. It's why I'm not inclined to give you too much time."
You're right that it's a wierd conversation. The reason it's weird is that I'm trying to have one conversation, and you're trying to have several others.
"This is, of course, not a lie. You regularly mock/demonize/discount folk like me in lieu of answering simple questions."
You make this charge, yet offer zero proof. Have I responded with snark on occasion? Sure. Have I ever crossed the line in response? Sure. Do I "regularly mock/demonize/discount" people? Not a chance.
"This is, of course, not a lie. You regularly mock/demonize/discount folk like me in lieu of answering simple questions."
Let's start with the fact that you've had to change from your original false accusation that I "demonize me and others", to "mock/demonize/discount". I guess realizing that you've lied you think the solution is to add items to the complaint until it's incredibly broad and meaningless. Then let's move on to "regularly", if this is such a regular occurrence, then it should be easy to find an actual example, yet nothing. It's not unusual for you to provide zero evidence of your claims, and this is no exception.
Your last three paragraphs are frankly bizarre. You've acknowledged asking a question that you've taken from an entirely different context, and used that as you excuse for your lies.
You state, "This is, of course, not a lie.", the proceed to acknowledge that "it is an opinion" which completely invalidates your claim.
The problem here is that I've used your own words to demonstrate a lie you've told, and you aren't able to do the same. You think that if you try hard enough you can conflate your opinion with the truth.
This conversation would be less weird if you'd stick to the topic, stop lying, just acknowledge that your human and that you screw thing up sometimes instead of defending every mistake you make to the death.
"My point is that you all suggest that there's no such thing as good people."
Since you've been corrected on this point several times now, Dan, it now stands as a willful like. We've been defending Scripture's teaching, not "suggesting" anything in particular, except to say that for all those YOU like to use as examples, we cannot judge their hearts or know every detail of their lives. You "judge" based on worldly notions of what constitutes "good" in order to pretend there is some other meaning in Scripture's teachings on the sin nature of man or in Christ's unequivocal statement that only God alone is good. You want us to "prove" that Jesus meant what He said while you don't do squat to so much as hint that He meant something else. Pointing to those whom you personally regard as "good" doesn't mitigate Christ's statement in the least. You MUST provide something from Scripture that clearly and unambiguously proves He was speaking figuratively. There is no reason to suggest He wasn't, unless you again are comparing YOURself or others to God. Christ's statement was clear. And again, His statement does NOT mean we, as humans and for our purposes in regard to living with each other, cannot use the term to apply to those who act with kindness or beneficial intent, as well as to separate some people from those who clearly act according to their sin natures. This is not a hard concept to grasp. but until you get serious about defending YOUR position, instead of trying to force us to defend Christ's clear teaching, you're just being petulant and irrational.
We all can see that it's not time that's keeping you two from dodging the questions/requests put to you for support. Here they are again:
As always and as this conversation began (for me), it was always about Support it.
1. Support the claim that there are no good people in the world; That, or ADMIT that yes, of course there are good people in the world and you don't mean Good as it is normally defined, you mean something else.
2. that Jesus was offering a literal definition of "good;"
3. provide your definition for good, because it's not what we all know as "good" in the English language;
4. and provide support for why your definition of good is definitive and authoritative, if you think it is.
The answers will almost certainly still not come, I'm just pointing out that they're not coming.
As anyone can see.
I’m just going to point out the demonstrable fact that I’ve answered/addressed these questions over a week ago in the appropriate thread.
Just more examples of lengthy, detailed, extended comments with answers and more that you’ve ignored.
One of the wonders of blogger is that it time stamps comments.
I guess pointing out the 5-10 threads that ended when you ran off instead of answering questions would be absolutely pointless.
Clearly expecting you to look in the appropriate thread is too much to ask. You’re too interested in control to care about context.
Hell, you couldn’t even go through a list and point out one good person without equivocation.
1. I’ve said repeatedly that there are people in the world who are considered good, by the definition you offered and compared to other people.
2. I’ve never said that Jesus was offering a “literal definition of good”. I do like how you change or restate your questions as a ploy to self fulfill your prophecy.
3. Once you demonstrate conclusively that Jesus use of the word good is limited by modern English definitions, I’ll expand on this more than I already have.
4. See my answer to #3. It’s interesting that you haven’t provided support (independent of your opinion) that your definition of good is “definitive and authoritative” in the context of Jesus comment. But that’s what we expect from you. You presume (but don’t prove) that you’re position is n the default correct position, while demanding that others do what you won’t do.
None of that ignores the fact that you’re too lazy to find the answers you bitch about.
So Dan drops by almost a week ago to complain that I haven't answered his questions. So, I correct his false impression and point out that I have done so, in the proper location. Shockingly, Dan then disappears. Not uncommon.
Post a Comment