Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?
Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?
Is a “good” deed done for a “bad” motive really qualify as “good”?
Can the same action be good or bad depending on the circumstances or motivation?
If we’re defined only by our actions, then what’s the magic number to be considered “good”?
24 comments:
Look, I'll demonstrate how easy it is to answer questions...
1. Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?
Both. We are who we are. I may be, by nature, a naturally lazy or ungrateful or ungenerous person... or at least tend towards those attitudes. However, if I - in spite of what I may think my nature is - start being a harder worker, or more grateful towards others or more generous... then I become a hard working, grateful and generous person. IF I am working hard, then whatEVER my "nature" might be, I AM a hard worker and not lazy. If I decide that it's important to give and start giving to good causes (in time and money), then i AM a generous person. So, ultimately, our actions determine our nature, but I'd say it's some of both.
And I'd state that based on all the evidence we see. Further, there is research that says that, even if we don't think of ourselves as generous (for instance), if we start giving, we develop more of a giving nature.
It's like that old parable: There are two wolves within us. One is evil and one is good. Those wolves are fighting. And which wolf wins the fight? The one we feed.
2. Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?
I don't know that we can objectively determine a "person's nature" but I think we can REASONABLY and ACCURATELY determine a person's nature based on observation.
It's POSSIBLE that a truly evil person can keep that hidden to friends and observers all around over time, but the odds of it truly being hidden, in spite of evidence of a good life, are ridiculously small. I'd say, along with Jesus, that one can recognize them by their fruit/by their actions. A good tree, Jesus said, will bear good fruit and that is observable.
Is a “good” deed done for a “bad” motive really qualify as “good”?
I would say that it would truly depend. The question is too vague and not enough data is available. Generally speaking, I'd be suspicious of good deeds done for a bad motive.
Can the same action be good or bad depending on the circumstances or motivation?
Yes, I think so.
If we’re defined only by our actions, then what’s the magic number to be considered “good”?
There is no magic number.
No one is arguing that a person that we observe who is "reasonably good..." i.e., the Miss Sue's of the world who are patient and kind and helpful and loving to people - especially the down and out and marginalized - and has no obvious immoral actions... no one is arguing that such a person is PERFECTLY good. I'm just saying that, given the fruit of one's life and especially over time, you can recognize good people by their fruit.
Perfectly good? No, of course not. REASONABLY good. Yes, of course.
See? It's VERY EASY to answer questions directly and clearly.
Now here's one for you: Given a Miss Sue who is generally by all observable data a genuinely good person - and let's even throw in that you know Miss Sue very well and you're in a position to know if she'd have any overt "evil" ideas and actions secretly hidden - do you have ANY reason to say that Miss Sue is NOT a good person?
I’ll give you credit. It’s your best attempt at answering in months, I guess that’s something.
It’s impressive that you basically managed to not take a defined position on any of your responses.
Very brave.
Dan still insists on framing the discussion as a statement on the worldly understanding of what constitutes being "good". Very telling. He proves the point about natural man having no understanding of the spiritual.
You asked big, open ended questions with no one direct answer. I gave pretty specific and clear responses that answered the questions as best they could be answered. Unlike you.
Marshal... "Dan still insists on framing the discussion as a statement on the worldly understanding of what constitutes being "good"."
No. I operate based on common definitions. If you want to offer an alternative definition for Good, then you can offer it. But also, support it.
Don't merely say, here's a line from a book therefore that is the definition of good. Support it with a reasoned explanation and data.
Here is the simple situation, it's easy to understand if you just think about it...
There is NO objective standard for what makes a person good. It doesn't exist. Nonetheless, understanding good and bad in a lot of ways is not that difficult.
Generally speaking, people can understand and agree that Miss Sue, in my scenario, is a good person. Reasonably so.
That is, reasonable people can look at her life and say yes, she is a good person. And most people will agree with that. It's not complex and it's not a precise judgment, but it's reasonable. To reasonable people.
So, by all means, offer us your definition of good. And support it.
Sure, whatever you say.
...or, if you're not going to answer my questions, why not answer your OWN questions?
1. Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?
2. Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?
Our nature (especially in the context of our sin nature) is the primary driver of our actions.
No
Craig... "Our nature (especially in the context of our sin nature) is the primary driver of our actions.
No..."
?
That's a fine guess (your first line above). Do you have any data to support it or is it just a hunch you hold based upon your personal human interpretations of biblical texts?
I guess we’ll have to see you provide the data for your answers.
Of course, proving your claims isn’t something you do.
Anyone can see that I've answered all the questions put forth here. Everyone can see that you're dodging. You're not fooling anyone. Are you trying to fool yourself?
I've never disputed that in this one limited thread, you've responded to the questions asked. You haven't provided the data you demand of me, nor have you proven any increasing number of claims you've made.
But, if trying to use that dodge makes you happy, than go for it.
I have said, Craig, that we can't say objectively what a person's nature is. Therefore, there is no way to "prove it." However, I was quite clear that we can REASONABLY KNOW, that we can make a REASONABLE, if not objective, evaluation of a person's nature, whether they are good or not.
What would you like me to prove?
I've asked you if YOU have some reason, given a Miss Sue-like example, to DOUBT that this is a good person? I've asked you if you recognize that most people would, no doubt, consider her a good person. Do you have reason to DOUBT that claim?
We are talking about unprovable ideas. But I have provided data, in the case of a Miss Sue or any of the hundreds of people we know who are like her (or maybe you don't know any good people, but I do) and I've asked YOU if YOU have any reason to doubt the suggestion that she is good.
You've responded with nothing. Why don't you begin by answering some of the many outstanding questions you continue to dodge and ignore, and then we can have a reasoned adult conversation.
Or run and hide like an immature person not willing to engage in an adult level conversation about philosophy.
"Don't merely say, here's a line from a book therefore that is the definition of good."
You mean like a dictionary? Look, the question isn't a matter of definitions. It's a matter of what Scripture...that is, God (no feo, I'm not saying a book is my god)...regards as good. We humans can regard MLK Jr. as a good man, but if allegations regarding his personal life are true, than some will alter their perception of just how good he is. Some will say he isn't a good man. Some will say that he's a good man who did some bad things, or that he was a morally corrupt man who did good things. I believe Christ asserted that even evil people...or gentiles or however He expressed it...care for their own. Many evil or wicked people regard themselves as good. The only issue on the table (with regards to Stan's post which started all this) is are we "good" as a matter of our nature and/or in relation to God. Scripture teaches us the answer is "no", which is why we need Jesus. It's pretty much the whole point of the Book. As Craig put it: Creation, Fall, Redemption. Said another way, you're assessing "good" by works and God doesn't...not for the purpose of salvation.
"No. I operate based on common definitions."
Would that be from man-made dictionaries and dictates? If so, then you've just affirmed the statement with which you now disagree. You're operating on common "worldly" definitions and thus missing the point of Stan's post.
? Marshall, you DO know, don't you, that dictionary definitions are not whimsically made-up definitions from nowhere, but that they are simply defining commonly accepted Notions? You know that, right?
You DO recognize that God has not given you a definition for justice or for goodness, but rather, you and all humans have developed and honed and refined our image and understanding of justice and goodness by a variety of influences, including the Bible?
If you wish to Define goodness or Justice in some non-standard way, you are, of course, welcome to do so. But own it. Don't give out an alternative definition for goodness or Justice and claim that God gave it to you. It makes you sound nuts.
Dan,
I’d like you to prove the multiple claims you’ve made here over the past few months.
Regarding your “example ”, what specific evidence have you offered? What is there to “study”? Can you substantiate her behavior 24 hours a day? Can you substantiate the motives and attitudes that drive her behavior? Do you really expect that it’s possible to make a definitive evaluation on the basis of limited “evidence”? Do you know that “what people consider” isn’t actually reality?
The reality is that I have responded to this foolish notion. I’ve pointed out that making objective judgments about a persons nature based on limited, subjective observations of limited amounts of behavior doesn’t make sense. Hell, mother Theresa, didn’t even consider herself a good person.
I appreciate you making my point, but if you don’t want to look like an idiot, I’d suggest a new strategy.
Craig, continuing to dodge reasonable questions, instead, opts for more questions. Here are the answers...
Regarding your “example ”, what specific evidence have you offered?
What is there to “study”?
Her behavior and attitudes. We CAN observe people, document what they do, observe it over time.
As the Bible notes: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
John thought that observation of behavior was sufficient to justify saying that we would KNOW that someone is a disciple, by THEIR ACTIONS.
Do you disagree that we can observe people's behaviors and draw conclusions?
For instance, we can observe your boys' president and note that he acts in a fundamentally dishonest, divisive and abusive/bullying manner. We can SEE that in his words and actions. To deny that is to deny what is observable reality.
Can you substantiate her behavior 24 hours a day?
Nope. Why, is that required?
Can you substantiate the motives and attitudes that drive her behavior?
If you observe someone long enough and are close enough to them conversationally, yes, of course, we can draw REASONABLE conclusions about one's motives and attitudes.
Why? Do you really think that we can't? Do you think John, Jesus and others were wrong to suggest observing behavior can tell us things, even motives?
Do you really expect that it’s possible to make a definitive evaluation on the basis of limited “evidence”?
As I have said multiple times: We may not be able to OBJECTIVELY KNOW someone's motives and attitudes, but we can draw REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS.
Again, do you think that we can't?
How do you operate in the world of humans? Do you go out suspicious of everyone you meet? Your wife and parents, your pastor and friends?
If so, i could OBSERVE that you're sort of a dick.
Do you know that “what people consider” isn’t actually reality?
Of course, you're often mistaken. If I know someone closely and observe them regularly, I CAN draw conclusions and oftentimes, those conclusions will be accurate in the real world.
We can draw the conclusion that Trump is fundamentally dishonest in the real world and it IS reality.
Good Lord, do you REALLY think you are that unable to reliably recognize human behavior and motivations by observation?
And yet, you think you can read biblical text well enough to "know" that you've understood some points definitively?
You appear to be embracing a delusional approach to human observation and what we can reasonably know and not know.
At any rate, THERE. MORE questions easily answered directly and clearly because your questions aren't difficult. But we might draw some negative conclusions about you and your understanding and behavior and motivations based on them. And we may not be that far off from reality.
You do realize that you haven’t offered any specific examples of your hypothetical “case study”, don’t you.
From the limited, vague, subjective and slanted , examples you’ve offered you’ve set up the hypothetical to “prove” your point. But it’s not actually real, it’s made up to lead to a preordained conclusion.
Observing limited, incomplete samples of hypothetical behavior without taking motive into account will lead to flawed conclusions.
It’s required because drawing conclusions based on incomplete evidence leads to bad conclusions.
You admit that you can’t really judge motivation, then try to offer a Jesus as an example, Except you aren’t Jesus.
If you’re going to make objective claims, then I’d expect objective proof.
And anyone can see that I'm directly, clearly answering your questions and you continue to dodge questions and make vague allegations.
If you ever want to show some good faith and answer questions, just say so.
"? Marshall, you DO know, don't you, that dictionary definitions are not whimsically made-up definitions from nowhere, but that they are simply defining commonly accepted Notions? You know that, right?"
Doesn't at all matter to the comment for which the above is a response. The point isn't about how much work went into creating a dictionary. The point is that a dictionary is the result of the efforts of man and relates to how man communicates...or what man means when man uses one word or another. Now prove that God means exactly the same thing man does because you continue to insist that God must act like man, whereas we contend that God acts apart from man, often in ways man cannot understand. Here, it's pretty simple. When God says only God is good, that pretty much means we aren't, even if among ourselves we establish standards by which we determine for our own purposes who is or isn't good. One gives greater weight to Martin Luther King's civil rights effort over his womanizing and calls him a good man. The same person ignores the good works of Donald J Trump and demonizes him for his womanizing, and calls him a bad man. Worldly definitions and standards of "good" applied subjectively to each. But the reality is all men are sinners. Only God is good.
"Don't give out an alternative definition for goodness or Justice and claim that God gave it to you. It makes you sound nuts."
No, it doesn't. Not at all, except to those driven nuts when faced with reality. I've not developed an alternative for goodness or justice. I don't put one forward. I merely agree with Stan's adherence to Scriptural facts regarding the nature of man and that JESUS said that only God is good. Your conflict is with God, not us. What's more, if you disagree with Scripture...if you think it means something other than what it is clearly saying, at some point you're going to have to put on your big boy pants and explain what it means and back it up with something tangible. Hint: referencing Merriam-Webster alone won't get you there.
"John thought that observation of behavior was sufficient to justify saying that we would KNOW that someone is a disciple, by THEIR ACTIONS."
I've dealt with this at your blog, Dan. This doesn't mitigate Christ's statement that only God is good. It simply refers to identifying Christians by their actions. It suggests that all who seem to be Christians because they appear to act like Christians are "good". YOU claim to be a Christian, but your support for immorality not only belies that claim, but clearly blunts the possibility that you might be regarded as "good". Certainly you might be trying to be "good" (though you certainly do so totally by your own standards, and clearly not Biblical standards), but even the best of us fall short of the Glory of God...therefore, not "good", but at best, only good by human standards.
At least you acknowledge that your “case study”, is simply a slanted hypothetical designed to force people to answer the way you want. Clearly you don’t understand the concept of a case study.
Post a Comment