I'm noticing a trend recently. More and more frequently I'll see someone construct their version of someone else's position, then proceed to argue against the made up version, rather than the real version. I understand why this happens. It could be anything from simple laziness to intentional falsehood. Ultimately it happens because it's easy. It's just easier to construct a straw man and dismember him, than it is to do the research and argue against reality. What's surprising is that people somehow think that this sort of thing is persuasive or effective. When the entire premise that you are building from is false, then who cares how brilliantly the false premise is demolished.
This is frequently accompanied by demands for proof. Yet how often do those who demand proof, fail to provide proof. Hell, they usually can't even define what the level of proof they demand is. This is usually accompanied by a lack of subjecting themselves or those they agree with to a similar level of skepticism.
The classic instance of this is, "Prove that Julius Caesar existed?"
The reality is that it's virtually impossible to prove to a 100% certainty that he existed. Yet, virtually no one denies his existence.
This demand for proof, doesn't seem to be coming from a sincere desire to gain knowledge, but rather from a position of obfuscation.
I guess I'd just say that if you're going to demand that others provide proof, then you should define he standard of proof you expect and be prepared to respond in kiind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
113 comments:
Gosh. I wonder who you have in mind?
If only this phenomenon was limited to one person.
Or two (don't forget the troll).
As easy as it is to make assumptions, this is much broader than it might seem.
Craig, at Stan's, making some claims...
" I suspect that when people argue in favor of the basic goodness of humanity they are starting from two premises that aren’t necessarily true.
1. They start by thinking “I’m pretty much a good person and everyone I know is too.”. This leads to extrapolating a subjective feeling out to encompass all of humanity.
2. They define good based on their subjective feelings about what they think is good."
Of course those starting points lead to certain assumptions, the problem is that it can’t be proven."
This, in spite of people like me being abundantly clear that this is NOT the case. Makes one wonder why you "suspect" something that you have no reason to support or why you would support something so obtuse?
I define good as I do with most words, generally: Good as it is commonly defined and understood. In this case...
GOOD: of a favorable character or tendency.
Thus, I define good based on the common understanding of good, and then I ask YOU ALL to support your claim that NO ONE is good. You don't and you can't.
Of course, in the real world, people are good... many of us. That is, many people have a favorable character or tendency. They do good things. They act kindly, the act in a just and helpful manner.
Do you disagree with what can easily be seen and demonstrated?
Rather than have an "argument" based on a straw man version of what we're saying, why not deal with what we're ACTUALLY arguing and make your case?
Indeed, it IS easy to make assumptions. But there's no need to in this case. Let's talk about the specifics of our respective arguments and let them stand or fall on our actual case, rather than this sort of silly straw man you've constructed.
Indeed, it's not limited to one person. It's not limited to "them liberals..." it includes you three (Stan, Marshal and Craig), as we can see with this case I've just provided.
Dan,
While this isn’t specifically about you, I thank you for making my point so well.
You are quite clear that “You define...” good in a particular way. That’s great, but it’s simply applying your subjective opinion to other people and God.
As to your straw man. You keep insisting that the position you deride is one that precludes any human from doing any good things. This is simply a straw man that you’ve constructed to argue against.
Maybe if you would actually provide proof when you make claims, it would give you some actual credibility when you demand proof from others.
The point being, Craig, and follow me because it is TRULY SIMPLE to understand, that most people can look at Miss Sue, for instance, and see a life of giving to others, of helping people out, of fighting for justice for others, of lending a hand when needed, of tough love when needed, of the sacrifices she made in adopting children not her own, etc, etc, etc on and on and on for over 60 years... most people can look at her and see, Yes, this is a good person. CLEARLY, she is not in any reasonable sense a bad or evil person.
Now, multiply Miss Sue times the hundreds of thousands of others out there like her through the ages.
Now, you can ARGUE that "yes, all these people are evil..." BUT WHEN YOU DO SO, you fall back upon a subjective hunch on your part and one that is insane as hell, and I mean that literally.
Now, if YOU want to make the case that all the Miss Sues of the world are actually evil and deserving of an eternity of torture for their imperfections, then YOU are the odd one out. It then falls on YOU to support your insane theory, rather than saying that we need to prove what is cold stone obvious.
And no, I"m not insisting that your position precludes any human from doing good things. I'm saying that your position - that ALL people in the world are not good ("There are none righteous, no not one") - is insane and unsupportable on the face of it.
Look, if you don't want to appear diabolically evil, then just make your case. WHY are all these humans who are not perfect, but ARE LITERALLY generally good people... WHY are they actually evil? Because they're not perfect? Is that your case?
Then make it. I"m just saying, MAKE YOUR CASE. PROVE YOUR CLAIMS. Or, have the decency to admit that you can't.
Ball's in your court, and good luck in saying anything in defense of your position that does not sound jacked up insane.
Craig... "You keep insisting that the position you deride is one that precludes any human from doing any good things. This is simply a straw man that you’ve constructed to argue against."
Do you REALIZE the irony of you making a straw man argument in accusing ME of making a straw man argument?
I literally did NOT "insist that the position I deride is one that precludes any human from doing any good things..." It literally did not happen. THAT is, itself, a strawman argument.
The irony is so thick it's almost nauseating.
Dan,
Why would I defend your straw man?
What you’ve done here is to make objective judgments about people’s actions without an objective standard, then you’ve applied this (now) subjective opinion to the nature of all of humanity.
Perhaps you could provide proof of the inherent goodness of human nature? Perhaps you could prove an objective standard of good?
Perhaps you should spend more time proving your claims than demanding that others prove your straw men.
Dan,
To my actual point. You have used the term “evil” multiple times in your comments to characterize the position Stan wrote about. I’m going to point out something that weakens your assertions.
I didn’t see anyplace where Stan used the term “evil” in his post. So by substituting the word “evil” you’ve constructed a straw man to argue against.
Beyond that, I’ve been quite adamant that using the term “evil” in this banal way detracts from actual evil.
So even though this isn’t about you, you’ve done an excellent job of demonstrating what I’m pointing out.
Thanks
The irony of you choosing to accuse me of what you’ve been doing is both fascinating and expected.
But, please keep on going with this instead of dealing with your straw man.
Art,
Dan seems determined to prove me wrong.
Dan,
What might be helpful is if you could take the scripture references Stan uses and prove that those mean something other than what the plain meaning of the text indicates. I seriously doubt you will do so, but it might be more productive that putting words in other people’s mouths and fighting a straw man.
Craig... "I didn’t see anyplace where Stan used the term “evil” in his post. So by substituting the word “evil” you’ve constructed a straw man to argue against."
"Evil" is not the point I'm making. I'm talking about the modern evangelical's shared Calvinist fantasy. "TOTALLY depravity." "No one is Good." "Evil." Whatever you want to call it. Being less than perfect appears to the calvinists like you all to be a significant crime against God and is SO significant that the punishment for being less than perfect is an eternity of torment.
I mean, EVIL at least makes your case less ridiculous. One MIGHT make the case that truly evil people DO deserve an eternity of torture. But if you want to fall back to "less than perfect," instead of "totally depraved," that only HURTS your position.
By all means, Craig, set me straight. You do NOT think that humanity is evil, but you do think that we are totally depraved, is that it? Or is it your position that all of humanity is only not perfect, but being Not Perfekt is deserving of an eternal death penalty?
How can I speak correctly of your position if you don't clarify your position?
Craig... " if you could take the scripture references Stan uses and prove that those mean something other than what the plain meaning of the text indicates."
I've done it. Repeatedly.
Stan: WE know that ALL of humanity are "not good" because here is a verse that says "there is no one righteous, not one."
Dan:
1. There are also verses about the four corners of the earth, but you don't take that literally. Why take this verse literally? You're building a case upon a literal reading of a verse, but what is the argument for taking it literally?
Answer the question, Stan (Craig, Marshall, ANYONE).
2. ONE obvious reason for not taking it literally is because we can SEE that there are good people in the world. Look at all Miss Sue does and the entire lack of any serious "not good" actions on her part. I mean, yes, she had an extra helping of cornbread at the church social when there wasn't enough to go around, but that TRULY does not rise to the level of "totally depraved," does it?
2a. We can see that there are Good People in the world, AND we know that the biblical authors use hyperbole and figurative language regularly, SO, given that, why is this not a case of hyperbole, rather than a literal fact?
For most of us, we recognize it for the hyperbole that it is, just like the line "From the womb, they were spreading lies..." does not mean that a one day/one month old baby is possibly telling lies. It is an OBVIOUS case of figurative language.
Why would we take it otherwise?
To THESE questions, we hear only silence. So, lacking ANY reasonable support for a demand to take those sorts of lines literally, we do the reasonable thing and take them for figurative language, much like "the four corners of the earth."
There. I've explained AGAIN why the "plain meaning" of the text is LITERALLY not literal.
Will there be any reasonable answers to these questions coming from any of you?
Experience says no.
And in case you couldn't follow my explanation, let me make it even more simple:
The Bible references the four corners of the earth. Taken literally, that would suggest a flat, square earth. AND YET, we know that the earth is not a flat square. So, CLEARLY, that verse is figurative or otherwise not a literal fact.
SIMILARLY,
The Bible references there being NO human that is good, not one. The Bible references that there are NO good people, no not one and that we are liars from birth. AND YET, we know that there are good people and that infants don't lie. SO CLEARLY, these sorts of verses are figurative or otherwise not a literal fact.
Dan,
Thank you once again for making my point.
First, if you can’t properly identify something (the term is tidal depravity), it doesn’t make you sound particularly informed.
Second, if your going to rail against something you should probably actually understand what you’re railing against. I realize that it’s easier for you to falsely characterize total depravity and rail about tour false characterization straw man than it is to do your research and be accurate.
Third, quoting one figurative verse isn’t proof that a different verse is figurative also. Perhaps the concept of proof is what is eluding you. In the case of the “All have sinned” verse, you’d need to prove that “all” means “not all”, to make your point. Simply pointing out that the Bible uses figurative language doesn’t prove that the verses quoted are figurative.
Fourth, you seem to be confusing assertion with proof. You keep asserting things, but not proving them.
As to your questions. When you ask rhetorical questions that demand that the answer agree with your opinion, it hurts your credibility to demand answers to those questions.
“...why is this not a case of hyperbole..,”.
This is a great example of how you use “questions” to obfuscate.
You have made the claim that it’s “fact” that the verse in question is “hyperbole”, but instead of proving your claim you ask that others prove the negative of your claim.
Finally, I’ll give you a hint. If you look at the concept of total depravity, as well as the verses that support it, there is nothing in either that denies the reality of your observations. Perhaps you should do some research before you start spewing vitriol.
Also, Craig, your non-argument "argument" is just factually mistaken...
"You have used the term “evil” multiple times in your comments to characterize the position Stan wrote about. I’m going to point out something that weakens your assertions.
I didn’t see anyplace where Stan used the term “evil” in his post."
Here is what Stan says on his post about "evil" humanity...
"If humans are born good, why does no one end up good?...
Those are Stan's words and his claim. He then goes on to "support" his claim by citing some Bible verses, including...
In the Psalms David wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies"
Thus, Stan's "support" for "no humans" ending up "good..." includes a Bible verse that speaks of WICKED humanity (wicked from the womb) and lying infants. With "wicked" being a synonym for evil. Stan continues...
And God said, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth."
Thus his support for "no good humans" includes a verse that says our hearts are "evil" from youth.
Thus, Stan literally DID make claims about evil humans and wicked babies. He actually references two bible verses calling humanity "evil," in his "support" for humans not being good, plus the "wicked" reference. So, just fyi.
Craig...
First, if you can’t properly identify something (the term is tidal depravity), it doesn’t make you sound particularly informed.
?? I can't tell if this is a hilarious typo or what. You DO know that the term is TOTAL depravity, don't you? I look back and see that I had a typo that said "totally depravity," but I would think you could understand what I meant. But with you, I can't tell if you made an even larger typo than I did in your complaint about a typo on my part or if you truly don't know your own terminology. Regardless, thanks for the laugh.
https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
https://carm.org/what-is-tulip-in-calvinism
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-introduction/
Craig...
, if your going to rail against something you should probably actually understand what you’re railing against. I realize that it’s easier for you to falsely characterize total depravity
Rather than more of your vague and irrational non-answers, why not be SPECIFIC. For ONCE, take a stand and be specific about what specifically you have a problem with... where specifically I have made a mistake?
In Calvinism, Total Depravity is the teaching that humans are "completely sinful," as it says in one of the links above... "Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful." We are "fully affected," whatever that means to a given Calvinist.
The point remains, that is an utterly unsupported claim and still leaves the question unsupported except that they reference some handful of verses and say, "THESE VERSES MEAN TO ME that we are totally depraved... completely sinful..." But they don't explain why that means there are "no good" humans or why all humans must be considered wicked from infancy and having "evil hearts..." WHY must these verses be taken literally? Especially given that we can SEE that there are indeed Good Humans in the world, people with no signs of having an "evil heart..." and infants with no signs of being "wicked" or "liars."
THAT is the question that always goes unanswered.
Craig... This is a great example of how you use “questions” to obfuscate.
No, THAT is a great example of how you refuse to answer reasonable questions to obfuscate. Asking questions is a reasonable response to outlandish, crazy-sounding claims. Refusing to answer them directly is literally the definition of obfuscate, "to render unclear." IF by answering questions in support of the point one is making, one could be more clear, then by refusing to answer the question is literally obfuscation.
You have made the claim that it’s “fact” that the verse in question is “hyperbole”You have made the claim that it’s “fact” that the verse in question is “hyperbole”
What I literally have said is NOT that "it's a fact," but rather that it seems extremely clear that the world does NOT have "four corners" and that infants don't "tell lies" and that the idea of there being "no good humans" is undone by the observation of good people. I'm pointing to reasonable observations and conclusions while you're dodging reasonable questions.
How about you beginning with YOUR preferred definition of Total Depravity?
Is it Merriam Webster's?
"a state of corruption due to original sin held in Calvinism to infect every part of man's nature and to make the natural man unable to know or obey God"
Theopedia's?
"The doctrine of total inability teaches that people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, as he requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God."
This one, from Christianity Today...?
"Total depravity simply means that every part of our being is corrupted by sin. And specifically, that our will, our human will, is bent in on itself, so that we will not seek God, we will not choose God, in and of ourselves."
By all means, give your definition and we can start from there.
If I could guess (and as I've guessed before, asking for you all to clarify) by "no one is good," you do NOT mean the normal understanding of "good." Indeed, as Good is normally understood, you all would - if pushed very hard - agree that there ARE good people in the world. Even good non-Christians.
But then, you all almost never (never? I can't recall if any of you have gone this far) are willing to affirm this point. But, I THINK that you all would agree that, no, the verse that says "there are NO good people in the world" does NOT mean that there are no good people in the world as good is normally understood.
In other words, you all don't MEAN that there are literally no good people in the world. You are defining good in some non-standard way.
Again, is that correct?
From there, then the question remains: HOW are you defining Good?
I've stated and guessed that what you probably mean is that there are no PERFECT people in the world. This is a point that we don't NEED a Bible verse to support, we can see that for ourselves (with the exception of infants who have not had the opportunity to be less than perfect... but you all probably can't even agree with that!) We agree that there are no PERFECT people in the world.
But if that's what you all mean, why not stop with the confusing claims that there are no good (as good is defined and normally used) people in the world (when clearly there are and you probably can agree, IF pushed)? Why not say, "What we mean is that there are no PERFECT people in the world... there are no people entirely free from corruption..."? At least you wouldn't sound like raving lunatics that way and then we could move on the next flaw in your thinking.
Dan,
Once again, thank you for making my point. The only way you could justify your false characterization of Stan’s post was to put words in his mouth, and conflate his quotation of scripture with his own words.
Now, a rational person would have explained why the scripture Stan quoted didn’t mean what I clearly says. You chose a different route, which doesn’t really help anything.
“n has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin.”
Please, explain which part of this is wrong? Which parts of humanity are not affected by sin?
“...where specifically have I made a mistake.”
Again, your pointing out that people do things that meet your criteria for good, is not incompatible with the concept of total depravity.
You demand an explanation of why those verses must be taken literally, yet can’t explain why they must be taken figuratively,
I’d suggest that there is no reason not to take those verses figuratively. Given the fact that I am unaware of anyone (except Christ) who has lived a life free from sin. I know of no one who always chooses good over evil. I simply look at humanity and see the reality that we all sin.
The problem you have is that you are trying to make objective claims about human nature, by selectively citing examples you subjectively consider good.
You are trying to judge the nature of people by applying your subjective view of good to a portion of their actions and ignoring their motivation.
The best your construct can offer is to keep score well enough that you can call someone who does 50.1% of their actions in a way that you define as good, can be defined as a “good” person.
This doesn’t take into account their motivation or the actions you don’t see. At best it’s a flawed and limited basis for judgement.
I’m all of your offered definitions you haven’t demonstrated that any of them are objectively wrong. Nor are any of those incompatible with your subjective definition of what constitutes good people.
The reality is that none of the definitions you offer says anything about actions. They all focus on nature.
You’re trying to suggest that a subjective assessment of a small percentage of people’s actions is sufficient for you to make objective claims about people’s nature.
Provide proof.
Dan,
You keep saying that “we” are making these claims. Yet as Stan’s post demonstrates, it’s more accurate to say that we are quoting what scripture says about the subject.
So, if you can prove that there is a rational alternative to the plain meaning of the text that is objectively more correct, by all means do do, But please stop with the fiction that we’re doing anything but assessing what scripture says.
Why is it so hard for you to answer a direct question directly and clearly?
You all are making the claim, are you not, that there are NO good people in the world. Is that not what you're saying?
At the same time, you all are NOT saying that there are no good people in the world, as good as normally understood. Is that correct?
Is it the case that what you mean by good is perfect?
Answer some questions so I can know what the hell you're talking about. If you don't clarify, then you just sound irrational and nonsensical. I'm asking you to explain your position so that we can go from your actual position rather than me guessing your position. Tell me your position.
Are there no good people in the world? How are you defining Good, then?
Craig... "You keep saying that “we” are making these claims. Yet as Stan’s post demonstrates, it’s more accurate to say that we are quoting what scripture says about the subject."
If you'll answer the questions directly that I just asked, then I don't have to say this is what your claim is, I think? I can just deal with your actual claims. If you will just answer the questions. Why don't y'all answer questions directly?
Beyond that, HERE is what Stan literally says. It's in the form of a question but it's in implying a claim...
"If humans are born good, why does no one end up good?."
Do you think the Stan is NOT implying that no one is good? Given the texts he quotes, do you think that stand thinks that people are not evil? All people?
By all means, answer some questions. Stake out a position and I will deal with the position that you stake out. But you can't make vague aspersions that sound like you're saying something and when I ask questions refuse to answer them to clarify and complain that I'm not talking about your actual positions. Take a position. Answer the questions.
Craig ... "all of your offered definitions you haven’t demonstrated that any of them are objectively wrong. "
I am first trying to ascertain your definition that you're operating off of. Then, once we know what you are talking about, then I can address what you are talking about. Why is this hard for you to understand? Define yourself. Stake out a position. Make your claim clear and then we can talk about your claim.
Craig... " if you can prove that there is a rational alternative to the plain meaning of the text that is objectively more correct, by all means do..."
So, given this question, I guess you simply don't understand that I've already done this? Multiple times? I don't know how to help you see what I've already done in a plain and straightforward way.
If we are defining good in the normal way that it is understood by Humanity generally speaking, then it is rational to consider the suggestion that there are no good people to be figurative. Because we can see that there are good people.
Just those words, just that much. Do you not see how that's overtly obvious and reasonable?
The problem appears to be that you are defining good in some non-standard manner. So that is why I am trying to get you to define the Good that you are talking about.
“Why is it so hard for you to answer a direct question directly and clearly?”
Because I’ve seen that doing so is pointless with you. You’ll more than likely either ignore my answer or misrepresent it. Plus I figure if you aren’t going to answer questions, I’ll just follow your example.
“You all are making the claim, are you not, that there are NO good people in the world. Is that not what you're saying? “
No, we’re claiming that scripture says what it says and that in the absence of proof to the contrary, it means what it says.
“At the same time, you all are NOT saying that there are no good people in the world, as good as normally understood. Is that correct?”
No. I’m saying that you’ve failed to define good beyond your subjective opinions about behavior. I’m saying that defining human nature as good, based on a limited, subjective survey of actions isn’t sufficient.
“Is it the case that what you mean by good is perfect?”
No
“Do you think the Stan is NOT implying that no one is good? Given the texts he quotes, do you think that stand thinks that people are not evil? All people?0
I think that Stan asked a reasonable question that you haven’t answered. Just like I’ve asked reasonable questions you haven’t answered. I’m not qualified to speak with authority on what Stan may or may not have been thinking or implying.
At best you’ve offered assertions or opinions about the meaning of the text. You’ve offered a wholly unrelated text, out of context, as s pretext to avoid dealing with the actual texts.
Look it’s clear that answering questions is a one way street with you, so it’s pointless to suggest that you should probably do what you demand from everyone else.
I’ll give you another hint.
As long as you’re trying to objectively categorize nature based on a limited, subjective examination of a percentage of a person’s actions, you’ll be discussing a completely different subject.
In this thread, I've answered ALL questions. You've answered MAYBE one or two, and only partially and out of context.
Define Good as you are using it.
As long as you’re trying to objectively categorize nature based on a limited, subjective examination of a percentage of a person’s actions, you’ll be discussing a completely different subject.
I'm not "trying" to do ANYTHING other than trying to get YOU and your people to define what you're talking about. Answer the questions so that THEN I can try to deal with what you're actually saying. THAT makes sense. For me to continually try to guess what you're saying (even though I don't think my guesses are mistaken) is just a waste of time.
Take a position. Be clear. Answer the questions.
Answer the questions or admit that you've lost and you aren't even trying to be rational.
No, you haven’t answered all the questions you’ve been asked in this thread.
I’ve answered some of your questions, I’ll likely answer more.
It’s interesting that you’ve managed to take a post that wasn’t about something and completely maneuver it so that I’m supposed to be answering every question you ask.
Here’s the problem with you and your tactics. I haven’t taken a position, you have. You can’t or won’t provide the proof of your position so you’ll hector me to do what you are unwilling, unable, or scared to do.
How could I have lost, you’re the one who can’t prove your claims.
I’ll grant that it’s possible that you just don’t understand the difference between what your proposing and the concept of total depravity.
You’re proposing defining people as good based on a limited sample of their behavior.
What the scriptures that Stan quoted aren’t referring to behavior, but to human nature.
Given the things you’ve advocated elsewhere and your assertions about humans being inherently good, I understand your confusion and why the concepts seem foreign to you.
Honestly, I don’t think you can understand the difference or that you actually want to. Since your “gospel” is focused on wealth and economics, a gospel focused on a Holy God and sinful humanity isn’t going to make any sense to you.
I’m not going to defend your straw men, and answering questions based of your warped understandings seems counterproductive. When I have time I’ll post a good explanation of the concept that has you so flummoxed and if you want to demonstrate where that’s wrong you can.
Craig... "You’re proposing defining people as good based on a limited sample of their behavior."
Literally NOT what I'm doing.
What I'm doing is responding to the claim made by calvinist like you and Stan.
You claim, "there are NO good people."
I'm simply asking YOU to SUPPORT your claim. I don't know how else to explain it.
To that end, I'm simply asking you to DEFINE how you're using the word, Good, becauseyou appear to be using some non-standard definition. I don't know how else to explain it.
Craig... "What the scriptures that Stan quoted aren’t referring to behavior, but to human nature."
And what does that mean to you when you say human nature is not good? Are you suggesting that Humanity, writ large is not good there for each individual should be punished for eternity because of the collective sense of humanity? Or do you mean that individually, our human nature is not good? And what does that mean to you? If I say to you your friend has a bad Human Nature, what am I saying about your friend? Please be specific.
Craig... Given the things you’ve advocated elsewhere and your assertions about humans being inherently good, I understand your confusion and why the concepts seem foreign to you.
Heh. Given your continued inability to read my words and be able to repeat back to me my position correctly... like, ever... I understand your confusion.
1. The concepts of Calvinism are not foreign to me. I WAS RAISED BELIEVING THEM.
Good Lord.
2. I have not made "assertions about humans being inherently good." I just haven't. I've said that there ARE good people. People who we can observe and see that they are good people. I would conclude that their "human nature" is good, in those cases, as well.
3. I HAVE read passages like God saying that God created humanity a little lower than God (or "the angels," depending on translation) and passages like Paul saying "we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." and Jesus himself saying that we would do things even greater than Jesus!... and I've thought, hm. Wow. But that's not the same as arguing that humanity is inherently good.
4. What I HAVE argued, again, is that there are good people - and I've argued this because we can see them regularly. I've also argued that humans are capable of great harm and oppression and perversions (one need look no further than the creep in the Whitehouse to see this) - and that verses that say things like "there are no good people, none..." sound like obvious hyperbole to me, given the standard understanding of Good and passages like God saying that we're created just a little lower than God!
So, anyway, perhaps now you can understand my actual position a bit better and understand the more nuanced understanding I hold about human nature.
But I doubt it.
“Literally NOT what I'm doing.“
Except it literally is what you’re doing. You’re offering your subjective observations of limited examples of the actions of a limited number of people and extrapolating that into “people are intrinsically good”.
That’s because your confused. What Stan did was to point out what scripture says and contrast that with the “people are intrinsically good” narrative. Stan is agreeing with scripture. Your issue isn’t with Stan, it’s with scripture. All you have to do is prove that the scriptures referenced mean something other than what they appear to mean.
I’m saying that if our nature as humans is to self centered and place ourselves and our desires above God, then that nature will be reflected in everything we do.
1. Based on your current vitriol towards anything that smacks of Calvinism, I’d suggest that if this statement is true, then you had a very poor understanding of what you believed.
2. You’ve repeatedly said elsewhere that humans are “born innocent”, and as you just acknowledged you are claiming that (at least) some people have a human nature that is “good”. Please prove that your opinion is more correct than what scripture says.
3. Leaving aside the fact that you deny the notion of creation, your prooftexting is simply incomplete. You’re simply pretending that there has been no change since “creation”. Or you’re just cherry picking,
4. The key in this is “sound like” and “to me”. You can’t prove that the verses cited are hyperbole, they merely “sound like” hyperbole to you. That couldn’t possibly be due to certain biases or preconceived notions you have that affect how you perceive scripture, could it?
Again, the “you don’t understand me” trope gets old. Especially since you avoided answering one of the first questions I asked you in this thread. Actually I asked it a second time in a slightly different fashion and you ignored that as well.
Stan defined sin as “replacing God’s lordship with my lordship” (approximately). Essentially placing ourselves in the position of deciding good and bad.
What’s interesting is that Stan points to scripture while you point to “it sounds like hyperbole to me”. It interesting that you both start in such different places.
I’m not sure that, “I see people doing things I believe are good, therefore I presume that those people have a good nature”, is particularly nuanced. You’ve ignored the role that motivation plays, you’ve based your evaluation on your subjective notion of good, and you are only basing your conclusion on a small percentage of the totality of public actions. Not so much nuanced, as predetermining the conclusion.
Craig... " that into “people are intrinsically good”."
Once again, literally not what I'm doing. That is literally not my quote. I'm not saying that people are intrinsically good. I'm saying that people are intrinsically nuanced. There is good and bad in all people. That is not the same as saying the people are intrinsically good.
I am saying that there are good people in the world, and I'm basing that just on the observation of seeing actually good people, as people generally understand Good.
Do you have evidence to support a claim to the contrary? Why are you kicking at the goads? Why are you doubting what is obvious and demonstrable?
From a Biblical standpoint, I'm saying the God said the God created us just a little lower than God, in God's image. That sounds pretty damned impressive, if you choose to take that literally. Or do you think that a little lower than God means not good, somehow?
We could make much more progress if you would just begin with answering some basic questions in responding to the holes in the "there is no one good" argument that I keep pointing out.
Craig... "Stan is agreeing with scripture. Your issue isn’t with Stan, it’s with scripture."
As always, this is true ONLY if you conflate Stan's opinion/interpretation with God's Word and Stan with God. I don't do that.
Stan offers HIS OPINION that this text should be understood literally. Other texts he would call figurative. These are all Stan's opinions. You appear to be agreeing with Stan's opinion then, NOT God's Word. The question is, is a literal reading of this passage fact and/or God's Word? You're begging the question when you say things like this.
Craig... "1. Based on your current vitriol towards anything that smacks of Calvinism, I’d suggest that if this statement is true, then you had a very poor understanding of what you believed..."
You can tell yourself whatever you want, but that doesn't change reality. Factually speaking, I was raised in a very conservative culture, one that was sympathetic to Calvinism. That's reality. You can't point to anything that I've said about Calvinism that is mistaken. Your claim is factually bankrupt.
Craig... "2. You’ve repeatedly said elsewhere that humans are “born innocent”
I've pointed out the reality that newborns are, by definition, innocent. They have committed no wrong. They are innocent of wrong doing. That's just reality. Do you really want to disagree with reality or can you and I agree on the reality that infants are, by definition, innocent of all wrongdoing?
Good Lord.
Craig... "4. The key in this is “sound like” and “to me”. You can’t prove that the verses cited are hyperbole, they merely “sound like” hyperbole to you. That couldn’t possibly be due to certain biases or preconceived notions you have that affect how you perceive scripture, could it?"
Yes. Those passage SOUND LIKE hyperbole to me. They SOUND LIKE they should be taken literally to you. Neither of us can prove the author's intent, one way or the other. What of it?
Seriously. What is your point here? That for me, it SOUNDS LIKE it's hyperbole, but for you, you KNOW it as a fact is intended to be taken literally? Bullshit. You don't, if that's your claim.
On the other hand, we use our reason - each and every one of us - to determine if a given text (ANY text) is written in a figurative or literal manner. We read four corners of the earth and it SOUNDS LIKE a clear metaphor, not a reference to a literally square flat earth. Some of us read the Creation story and it CLEARLY sounds like a mythic creation story. Others read that same text and it SOUNDS LIKE, to them, an historically accurate rendering of day one of the Universe. Stan and others read "No one does good" and it SOUNDS LIKE, to them, a literally factual statement, but for others of us, it does not at all sound like that.
What is your point, here?
Answer. Be specific.
Craig... "That couldn’t possibly be due to certain biases or preconceived notions you have that affect how you perceive scripture, could it?"
As always, I STARTED OUT TAKING SUCH PASSAGES LITERALLY. That WAS my certain bias and preconceived notion. It was only in studying and reasoning my way through it over time that I overcame my preconceived notions and reached what I believe to be a much more reasonable and biblically astute understanding... one with a HIGHER, not lower, view of Biblical understanding.
Craig... "Especially since you avoided answering one of the first questions I asked you in this thread. Actually I asked it a second time in a slightly different fashion and you ignored that as well."
The only questions I can find near the beginning of this thread are these two that I've answered multiple times in multiple ways, including within in at least one of these two recent threads. These questions?
A. Perhaps you could provide proof of the inherent goodness of human nature?
Read closely: I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT HUMAN NATURE IS INHERENTLY GOOD.
That is not my claim. it is not a claim that I have made. I have not claimed that human nature is inherently good.
I don't know how else to say it.
I've said that humans have both good and bad within them. They make both good and bad choices, for both good and bad reasons.
I've noted that GOD SAID in the Bible that God created humans a little lower than God and in God's image and I've wondered, "Hm, that's interesting. What exactly does that mean...?" But that is not the same as making a claim that humans are inherently good.
B. Perhaps you could prove an objective standard of good?
No, I can't. There is not one. As I've said. YOU don't have one. I don't have one. None of us do. "Good" is a subjective term/idea.
Having said that, when we look at a Miss Sue kind of person (and they're all over), then I think most REASONABLE humans can observe that behavior and say, Yes, she is a good person.
It's not an OBJECTIVE quantification, but it is a REASONABLE one that most people could agree upon.
Humans, flawed and imperfect though we are, have a generally sound notion of Good and recognize it when we see it, it seems to me.
I don’t have time to wade through this recent flood of comments.
What I will do is apologize for allowing you to drag this thread so far from the original topic.
Your topic being straw man arguments, I brought you one of your straw man arguments, demonstrated how it was a straw man argument and asked you a bunch of questions to try to get you to deal with the data as it relates to your straw man argument.
You, in turn, have ignored the questions and gone on for 40 comments dodging the heart of your straw man argument and failing to admit to it or apologize for it (or, contrariwise, demonstrate how it wasn't a straw man argument, which you can't do because it is a straw man argument).
We see what you're doing.
We see the questions you're dodging.
We see the holes in your argument that you aren't even trying to plug.
We see, time and time again, that you don't even understand my arguments or, on the other hand, how you make false claims about my arguments, engaging in straw man attacks, instead.
We see.
Anyone who reads it can see.
Here's hoping you have the intelligence to see it as well (I think you do) and the integrity to answer questions and deal with the straw man attacks you've constructed.
That remains to be seen.
Except, you haven’t brought up a straw man argument.
The problem you seem to have is that you believe that your imagination is reality.
I haven’t made an argument. Since there’s been no argument, how can there be holes.
The irony of you complaining that I haven’t answers every single rhetorical question you’ve asked, while you’ve avoided two critical questions would be humorous if it wasn’t so typical.
Stan and Art,
You guys probably figured this out earlier, but this thread is a great example of how talking theology with Dan is like talking to a Mormon or JW.
If you isolate total depravity from irresistible grace, you only get part of the story. If you reduce the gospel to something that’s aimed at the materially poor, rather than at sinners, it fails to make sense.
When you move beyond the framework of “Creation, Fall, Redemption”, so much of scripture fails to make sense.
Dan,
As I've looked at the sheer volume of your questions, I've realized that it's not so much that I'm avoiding your questions but that I'm choosing to prioritize things like my business, my family, and volunteering over investing a bunch of time providing answers that you'll likely ignore (if the past is any guide). So, perhaps you might take the demands you make on the time of those you flood with questions and perhaps extend some grace instead of impatience, and ad hom attacks.
Then just choose a few simple questions.
How do YOU define "good..."?
Given a Miss Sue-like case study, do you have any reason to doubt it when people recognize her as Good?
Would YOU not agree that she is, in the normal sense of the word, Good?
I don't see how these are difficult questions to answer. Do you?
Like many words, good has multiple definitions, what context are you asking about?
Do you understand that there literally is no “case study” to draw conclusions from? Do you know what a “case study” is?
It’s literally impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from your hypothetical “case study”, so I won’t waste my time.
I will point out that people like Paul and Mother Theresa tended to not think of themselves as “good”, so there is that.
good has multiple definitions, what context are you asking about?
Good Lord, you're obtuse and evasive.
I've been talking quite clearly about the cases of people like Miss Sue. We all know people like this (or at least I and all my friends know people like this). People who are kind, compassionate, helpful and take steps to demonstrate that. People like Miss Sue are, by the consideration of normal humans, considered to be Good people. I'm talking about the context of people like Miss Sue are observably good, decent, helpful people.
Look, try this: Do YOU, PERSONALLY have any noble, kind, loving helpful people in your life? People that about whom you would say, "She is genuinely a good person..."? Use THAT person as your case study.
Only in your world is asking a question to clarify something a problem.
Dan,
Using your hypothetical, bs, case study I’ll say that the visible actions that can be observed indicate someone who does good things. You’ve offered no evidence of the entirety of this hypothetical persons motivations, non public actions, that would provide a full and accurate picture.
I’d point to Dr A. He’s someone who’s gone from a childhood marked by near poverty and being raised by his widowed mother to become a successful Dr. I’ll point out the fact that he’s personally treated hundreds of Haitians, invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into caring for orphans, funding medical care in Haiti, supporting churches, para church organizations, opens his home to people who need lodging, etc. Yet, he’d be the first to acknowledge his sinful nature. Of course, you’d deny both his goodness and his salvation because he’s “rich”.
This just points out your flawed understanding of the concept you revile.
You're such a cowardly douche. Irrational, evasive, milquetoast, lying, cowardly douche.
So, with that as a given, Dr A sounds like a good person to me and I have no reason NOT to think that he's a good person.
DO YOU THINK that Dr A is a good person?
Answer directly and clearly.
Don't be a douche.
Craig... "I’ll say that the visible actions that can be observed indicate someone who does good things..."
Are you suggesting that a person who does good things is not a good person? Are you suggesting that someone who consistently is a person who does good things that you have some reason to suspect that they're not good?
If so, what is your support for that stupid ass claim?
And yes, bad people can do good things for bad reasons. But does that mean you think that everybody who does good things is a bad person doing it for bad reasons? If so, what is your
support
for such a stupid ass claimed? Answer some f****** questions or admit that you're a coward.
Support. Your. Claims.
Answer. Some. Questions.
What a Christlike response. Of course, being called cowardly by someone who's virtually banned me from commenting is pretty much a pot/kettle situation.
Maybe you missed the place where I said that Dr. A would consider himself a person with a sinful nature.
If you are asking "Is his nature inherently good, then I'd say no.", If you're asking "Does he engage in lots of actions that meet society's definition of "good"?" then I'd say yes.
It's interesting how willing you are to laud rich people when you perceive that it serves your purposes.
You clearly don't understand the distinction that's being drawn, or you do and it's easier for you to blur the lines between action and nature. Ultimately your problem stems from your belief that humanity is essentially good in nature, so you selectively pick people's actions that reinforce your predisposition, and extrapolate from those cherry picked actions to conclusions about the nature of humanity.
I'm calling you a cowardly douche because you're not answering clear and simple questions directly and clearly. You continue to dodge and obfuscate.
I'm not asking about his sin nature. I'm not asking about his nature. I'm asking about him.
Do you generally think he is a good person? asking do you consider him a good human being?
Yes? No? It's hard to say?
If it's hard to say about Dr a, then I'm asking you if you do not have anyone in your life that you consider a good person? I do. It's easy. It's no contest. Of course I know plenty of good people.
Do you not have in your sad little life even one person that you consider good, generally speaking?
If not, well then, I'm truly sorry for you. That explains a lot. That is sad. Maybe you need better friends?
Why is that difficult to answer? Do you consider consider him a good person or do you consider him a bad person, generally speaking?
It's a straightforward question that seems like it would have a straightforward answer.
I'm just talking in general terms:
Do you think Dr a is a good person? Why don't you answer THAT question?
Craig... "It's interesting how willing you are to laud rich people when you perceive that it serves your purposes."
? You do recognize, don't you, that I've never said anything like all rich people are bad?
Here's another example of you reading my words and reaching conclusions that I've never said. It calls into question your ability to read and understand words. If you can't read and understand my words, then why do you have any confidence in your ability to read and understand the Bible?
Craig... "You clearly don't understand the distinction that's being drawn, or you do and it's easier for you to blur the lines between action and nature. Ultimately your problem stems from your belief that humanity is essentially good in nature..."
Re: your last Point, first. If I tell you 100 more times that I do not believe that humanity is essentially good in nature, will you understand that I've never said that and don't necessarily advocate or believe that?
I don't believe humanity is essentially good in nature.
I don't believe humanity is essentially good in nature.
I don't believe humanity is essentially good in nature.
I don't believe humanity is essentially good in nature.
Etc.
Go ahead. Say it again. Look like you're either a fool or a liar.
As to your first suggestion above, it appears that you are operating from a belief that human nature is essentially evil or corrupt or not good, by which you probably mean NOT what those words say but merely that humans are not perfect. I'm just pointing out there's a difference between saying humans aren't perfect, which we agree on, and humans are essentially corrupt in nature. And there's a difference between saying humans aren't provably corrupt in nature and saying that humanity is essentially good.
So, the question for you is, are you deliberately not understanding or just not capable of understanding the difference?
Dan,
I guess pointing out that while everything I said about Dr A is 100% true, I didn’t paint the full picture of him. I chose things about him that would push you towards the response you gave, while excluding things that would have changed your tune.
I suspect you’re too stubborn or lack the self awareness to acknowledge that your response supports my point. But you were so determined to jump, that you went too far.
And still you can't or won't answer a simple question. Do you have no one in your life that you think of as a good person?
I'm starting to think that you don't. That you honestly don't think anyone around you is a good person. I don't know if that's saying something sad about your friends of people you hang around with? Or, more likely, it says something about you.
Sad.
Dan,
I have multiple people, including myself, who do good things. If you’d like to prove that doing some good things proves that human nature is intrinsically good, and that actions are more important than motivation, then do so.
You’re going to great lengths to obscure the differences between human nature being intrinsically good, and people who are intrinsically sinful who do good things.
Your construct also ignores the transformative nature of The Gospel.
If you’d like to prove that doing some good things proves that human nature is intrinsically good, and that actions are more important than motivation, then do so
Good LORD, you're obtuse.
I. AM. ASKING. A. SIMPLE. QUESTION.
Do YOU know any human beings that you consider to be GOOD HUMAN BEINGS?
It's not a trick question. It's a straightforward question. I would be willing to guess that the vast majority of HUMANITY could easily answer this question with a simple, "Yes, of course I know people that I consider to be good human beings."
You appear unable or unwilling to answer that simple question.
I know TWO YEAR OLDS who can answer this question, but not you.
You’re going to great lengths to obscure the differences between human nature being intrinsically good, and people who are intrinsically sinful who do good things.
I'm not DOING anything. I'm asking YOU a simple question.
You, on the other hand, are going to great lengths not to answer that simple little question.
Contrary to your repeated stupid God-damned false claim, I have NOT MADE any claims about human nature being intrinsically good. But that does not matter to you. My lack of that claim does not prevent you from saying I've made that claim. My pointing out that I've not made that claim does not matter to you, you'll still repeat that diabolical lie without a care in the world.
No wonder you give such a wide pass to Trump and his hideously corrupt and untrustworthy nature: YOU ARE CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH. You make up false claims and repeat them STUPIDLY, as if no one can see that it's a stupidly false claim.
SO, answer the question or don't, no one really cares. We all see that you're either tragically irrational and un-knowledgable/lacking in basic understanding of words and communication OR that you're just a obfuscating liar. If it's the former and you're truly an idiot, I AM terribly sorry for being so harsh on you. But I guess I just don't think you are that stupid or lacking in adult understanding of communication and language skills.
But just for one last try, you say...
I have multiple people, including myself, who do good things.
Do you, then, think that these multiple people are GOOD people, generally speaking?
NOTE: I AM NOT ASKING IF YOU THINK THEY ARE PERFECT PEOPLE. Just Good, as Good is normally understood.
Do you think that, in spite of those good things, that they are ultimately evil people? Utterly hopelessly corrupt people?
And I'm not asking about people you may know who have done SOME good things, but who are also father rapers and child killers. I'm talking about regular decent, good people that most of us know. Do you know anyone like that?
Dan,
The answer is that I know people who, by my subjective standards, I would consider to be good.
But the problem with this entire digression is that my subjective standards aren’t the issue here. My, or your, subjective opinions based on limited observation aren’t the issue. The issue is what standards was Jesus using when he said “There is no one good but God.”. The issue isn’t actions, it’s nature. I understand that you’ve wasted a lot of time and gone to a lot of effort to try to make this about you using your subjective opinions, based on an incomplete and limited amount of observations, to extrapolate into making claims that sound objective.
You’ve ignored the two key questions you were asked early in the thread and instead demanded that things go down the rabbit hole of your subjective opinion.
Well played, your talent for turning the conversation in the direction you deem most helpful is still strong. As is your impatience when others let more import things divert us from your incessant demands for immediate answers to irrelevant questions.
The problem with your subjective, grade on a curve, opinion is that all that is needed is to point out the good things done by anyone and judge that person “good”.
Craig, do you realize and understand that your hunches about what Jesus meant when he said "there is no one good but God" are YOUR OWN subjective human hunches? That your opinions about this are not objective, but rather subjective?
In all of these conversations, we're talking about subjective opinions. You hold some, I hold some.
So why is it that when I talk about my subjective opinions about good - which are common and reasonable understandings as compared to probably the vast majority of the world - why are my subjective opinions about that somehow a problem, but your subjective opinions about what you guess that Jesus meant in some passages not a problem?
Craig... The answer is that I know people who, by my subjective standards, I would consider to be good.
Finally, a relatively direct answer (albeit with a caveat).
Second question: For those people who you believe to be "good," do you have any reason to suspect that these people are objectively Bad?
Third question: Are any of the people who you think to be Good people not Christian (by your standards of what constitutes a Christian)?
Fourth question: Do you think that, because these "good" people are not "god" or are not perfect (or however YOU are defining "good"), that their imperfection is SO egregious that they "deserve" to be tortured in hell for an eternity?
If so (and presumably you do), do you see how many would find that irrational and an affront to justice and goodness and love?
As to whatever imaginary questions you think I have not answered in this thread, by all means, tell me what they are and I'll answer them. I don't see any questions I haven't answered so I have no idea what questions you think have gone unanswered so I can't answer what I don't know you're asking.
Craig...
The issue is what standards was Jesus using when he said “There is no one good but God.”. The issue isn’t actions, it’s nature.
That is your opinion, I suppose? Okay. In YOUR opinion, you think some people aren't "good," NOT because they don't seem to be genuinely good (by your "subjective" standards) but because (again, by your subjective standards), you think their "nature" isn't "good," is that what your opinion is?
What is your support for this hunch?
And it is your further opinion, I suppose, that those people who are, by their actions and observable behavior/attitudes, "good," that even so, their "nature" is "not good," and therefore, because their "nature" is "not good" (by some standard you personally hold, presumably because they are not perfect), they "deserve" to be tortured for eternity for the "crime" of having a "not good nature" or an "imperfect nature..." is that also your opinion?
Okay. Can you support this with anything other than your subjective opinion?
Dan,
The problem with your obsessive reduction of every single issue to subjective opinion, is that it denies the fact that we have the ability to determine the meanings of words, sentences, and paragraphs. In the case of “no one is good but God”, I’m simply looking at the plain meaning of that assembly of words, applying Occam’s razor and reaching a conclusion. What you’re doing is making the “objective” statement that my rational conclusion is an “opinion”, which means you dodge having to demonstrate that my interpretation is wrong. It allows you to hide from the implications of the text, without actually having to do anything. It’s simply a lazy way to hide from something you don’t like.
You constantly bitch about “nonstandard definitions”, yet you implicitly argue that it’s rational to conclude that “no one is good” means that “some people defined by Dan are good”. Yet you give no rationale for interpreting this to mean the opposite of what it says.
If you can’t prove that people are objectively good, why would you expect me to do something you’ve been hiding from throughout this thread?
You’ve introduced another diversion into the thread, well done. The basis of this discussion and your panty wadding is whether or not people are intrinsically good by inherent nature. You now want to introduce another diversion.
Again, with the diversion. As to hell and what that looks like, I’ll defer to what Jesus had to say on the subject and wait for your objective proof that He’s wrong.
If you aren’t going to support your positions objectively, stop asking others to do what you can’t or won’t do.
You constantly bitch about “nonstandard definitions”, yet you implicitly argue that it’s rational to conclude that “no one is good” means that “some people defined by Dan are good”. Yet you give no rationale for interpreting this to mean the opposite of what it says.
? Of course, I have. YOU AND I AGREE. There ARE good people in the world. Thus, this verse does not mean "the opposite" of what it says. It just means that, given the reality that there are people who are reasonably considered Good, then clearly, Jesus must have been using metaphor or hyperbole to make a point. THAT is a reasonable explanation for understanding Jesus' words there.
WHY would Jesus use hyperbole/metaphor? Because it is a very human and biblical way of making points, why wouldn't he?
We say, "You so CRAZY!" when we don't mean someone is literally crazy and "He such a DAWG" when we don't mean someone is a literal dog and "I'm such scum! I'm an awful human being!" when we don't mean that we are literally scum or an awful human being.
Sure, compared to God, there is no one PERFECTLY good like God. THAT is reasonable and observable. But, at the same time, you and I agree that there are people who are good by normal reasonable understandings of what it means to be good.
Do we have an OBJECTIVE measure of what a Good person is? No, of course, we don't. But simply the lack of having an objective measure is NOT evidence that there are NO GOOD PEOPLE in the world.
Do you recognize that you can NOT objectively prove that there are NO good people in the world?
Do you recognize that most people would laugh off such a suggestion?
More questions for you to ignore.
yet you implicitly argue that it’s rational to conclude that “no one is good” means that “some people defined by Dan are good”.
No, I factually do not. I argue that the language here seems to be figurative, not literal.
When I say that there earth isn't a flat square doesn't mean that when I read "the four corners of the earth" that I'm defining four corners and square differently. Not at all. I'm recognizing a metaphor for a metaphor.
If you can’t prove that people are objectively good, why would you expect me to do something you’ve been hiding from throughout this thread?
1. I have not said that people are objectively provably "good." I've said that there is no way to objectively measure that claim.
Do you recognize that reality?
Since I have made NO CLAIM about people being good being an objectively provable thing, why would I have to prove it? HOW could I prove it?
2. You APPEAR to be making an objective claim: That there are NO "good people" in the world. It's hard to tell because of your continued dodging of the question. You appear to be making a further claim: That when Jesus said there is no one good, but God, that he was defining Good to mean something more like "perfect," AND that he was NOT speaking metaphorically and that we should take it literally. ARE YOU making those claims as objective facts? Or do you recognize that this is your subjective opinion?
The basis of this discussion and your panty wadding is whether or not people are intrinsically good by inherent nature.
? How many times do I have to deny that this is my claim? I'm not saying that "people are intrinsically good by inherent nature." NOT my words. NOT my claim.
" if you aren't going to support your position subjectively, stop asking others to do what you can't or won't"
I've supported my objective claims. I've been clear about which claims are subjective or not provable. That's all I'm asking you to do.
If you think in your head that you have this hunch that you think in your opinion that Jesus meant that there literally are no good people in the world and he was defining good in some other way than the normal way, and you are clear that this is just your opinion in your own head, that it is subjective and not objective, opinion, not fact, then say so. Be clear.
Is your hunch, which is clearly a subjective opinion, just your hunch and not an objective fact? That's all I'm asking you to do, make yourself clear.
You’re claiming that Jesus statement that “no one is good” is hyperbole or metaphor. How about you pick one and prove your claim?
Of course, you’re still trying to extrapolate your subjective opinions about a small sample size of observed actions (completely ignoring motive) to make “objective” claims about people’s nature.
What percentage of subjectivity “good” actions makes someone a “good” person? How do you separate action from motive?
I’ll address your last question. Unless you can prove that Jesus actually meant that “no one” I’d good, meant “some people” are good, and that He’s obligated to limit Himself to your preferred definition of Good, it looks like you’ll need to prove that your hunch is more than subjective.
All I’m saying is that I have no ready to doubt that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
Because YOU BELIEVE that there are good people, then clearly YOU MUST THINK that, on some level, some people are good in some sense?
Conversation would be easier if you would just , you know, converese.
Answer some damned questions, or expose your intellectual cowardice.
But, too late.
And quit conflating your own petty little half-assed human hunches with God's word. You're begging the question and doing so in a blasphemous manner.
YOU ain't God and your hunches are not God's. Your arms are too short to box with God.
Let's ignore for the moment your legacy of unanswered questions over the past few months. Let's ignore the multitude of comments you've deleted with answers to questions you've asked. Let's even ignore the questions I've answered in this thread. Finally let's ignore the fact that I have a limited amount of time and I sometimes choose do things other than respond to every hunch you write. Instead, lets focus on ad hom attacks, that's what conversation is really all about.
I do agree that people are good in a limited subjective sense. I've also been clear that acknowledging that people are subjectively good in a limited sense doesn't conflict with the concept of total depravity. Therein lies the straw man that you've so vociferously defended.
Speaking of defending blasphemous hunches, prove that when Jesus said "no one" that He really meant "some people". It shouldn't be that hard.
The fact is that when confronted a request to prove something you can't prove, you quickly pivot to ad hom attacks.
While you rant about questions, I find it interesting that there are two questions that came up early in this discussion that you haven't answered. The first was in the post by Stan that started this all.
1. "If humans are born good, why does no one end up good?"
The second was after you posted several definitions of total depravity. I quoted one
“sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin.”, and asked the following.
2. Please, explain which part of this is wrong? Which parts of humanity are not affected by sin?
What's noteworthy is that you don't start the whole "don't answer questions" trope until after you've chosen not to answer these two foundational questions.
No matter how many questions of mine you continue to ignore, I can easily in answer your questions and generally do. Perhaps you just not understanding that they've been answered, I don't know. But I've answered your questions. By and large.
1. If humans are born good why does no one end up good?
This is question begging. Who says that no one ends up good? I know plenty of good humans. How are you defining good? Answer some goddamn questions.
2. Which parts of humanity are not affected by sin?
Question begging. Prove to me that Humanity or parts of humanity are affected by sin? I don't know what that question means.
My answer to the question as I understand it is that All of us are affected, for instance, when a jackass pervert president sins and locks up immigrants or sins in his treatment of refugees. All of us are affected. It harms all of us. So what? What's your point?
And yes, bad behavior affects us emotionally, it affects us spiritually and psychically. What about that?
Are you suggesting that if we are affected by sin then we are no longer good? Says who? Prove it.
I'm beginning to think that you're just not as able to understand communication and words as I might have thought. You're dodging of reasonable questions is apparently because you're not able to answer them rationally? I don't know. Your questions indicate a lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.
Once again, I've answered your questions. Your turn.
Define good.
Since you and I agree that there are good people, why would we not assume the Jesus is speaking figuratively?
I find it interesting that there are two questions that came up early in this discussion that you haven't answered. The first was in the post by Stan that started this all.
1. "If humans are born good, why does no one end up good?"
I did deal with it, of course. And right away at the post where I brought it up.
I posted Stan's question above and asked:
"Here's a challenge for people like Stan: support your premise/claim. Prove that people are basically bad/evil/corrupt. Prove not only that people, in general, are not good... but that they are SO evil that the only proper response is to torture them for an eternity to punish them for their evil."
That is, I said in effect (in case you're missing the point):
Stan, YOU have made a claim. That "No one ends up good." Prove it.
That is at least part of what I'm asking him to prove. What I'm saying by asking him to prove it is that he CAN'T prove it.
By all of our normal understanding of "Good," we all KNOW that there are good people in the world because we KNOW them.
Now, of course, we all (on my side, anyway) recognize that Good is subjective and that there IS NO ONE DEFINITION OR SET OF STANDARDS to say, "This is a good person." Nonetheless, we know good people when we see them.
We're not saying that they are PERFECT (how you all APPEAR to want to define Good for yourselves). Just that they are generally good people. Even you and Marshal agree with that in theory at some level.
The thing is, YOU ARE PRETENDING to have an authoritative definition of good that says "in spite of normal understandings of Good, there ARE NO GOOD PEOPLE in the world." Is that fair?
We don't know from you because YOU WON'T ANSWER that question nor will you define Good nor say why your definition is the One True Definition.
Marshal, for his part, has admitted this is his position. To Marshal, Good is not defined as WE normally define it, but as "God" or "perfect." Which is something different than good.
At any rate, all of that to say that I DID answer the question, by asking Stan to prove it, which none of you all can, which goes to show that your hunches are subjective, not authoritative, which is all I was asking.
Beyond that, you all appear to agree on some level that Stan's premise ("No one ends up good") is a flawed premise, because we all know good people as humans generally understand good. And since we're all humans, well, that sort of answers that.
Dan,
I’m impressed that on one post in months, you’ve deigned to answer a few questions, but stop pretending that you haven’t made a habit of ignoring questions and running off when pressed.
1. Name one? Do you seriously think someone could make it through life without sin in anonymity?
2. That’s two non answers. But dismissing uncomfortable questions as “question begging” is at least a new and different excuse. So there’s that,
I do love how you bitch about my not answering questions, after I just answered a bunch.
As I’ve said before, in what context are you looking for a definition of good?
Because you’ve chosen to define good in such a way as to mean both everything and nothing simultaneously.
Your insistence that you are capable of determining the objective goodness of someone based on a small sample size of their public behavior, yet can’t provide the tipping point between bad and good is simply a moving target.
For example, let’s say your hypothetical Ms Sue did all the wonderful things you believe she’s done. But, while you didn’t see her she; voted for Trump, polluted mountain streams, oppressed LGBTQXYZPDQ people, and murdered puppies. Let’s say that the only reason she did her good deeds was to distract superficial people like you from the rest of her actions? Still a good person?
You’re right, I haven’t defined good because you haven’t defined what the objective standards are that make someone good.
You do know that “dealing with”, isn’t answering?
Once again, how about you stop creating my position then arguing against the position I’ve created. Maybe that’s your problem not mine. FYI, I’ve dealt with that particular bit of your BS at least twice in this thread.
I’ll end by noting that usually the point at which you put this much effort into not answering specific, significant questions, is usually not a good sign for you.
Craig... 1. Name one? Do you seriously think someone could make it through life without sin in anonymity?
I'll just remind you of the actual question and comment...
1. "If humans are born good, why does no one end up good?"
I did deal with it, of course. And right away at the post where I brought it up. and...
Who says that no one ends up good? I know plenty of good humans. How are you defining good?
I think your "name one?" question is meant to suggest that I suggested there are perfect people? It's hard to tell what you're talking about, but if it's that...
The question is, are there GOOD PEOPLE? I say yes. You and Marshal say yes, albeit with some strange and vague caveats. So, your question "Do I seriously think someone could make it through life without sin..." is weird. You DO understand, don't you, that I don't define Good to be "perfect" or "without sin." That is YOU all, it appears.
So, yes, there ARE good people in the world. You can't prove otherwise and you appear willing to even agree. One need not be sinless to be good, that isn't the part of the normal understanding of that word.
Look, if you want to talk about PERFECT people, use that word so people understand what you mean. You can't use Good when you mean Perfect and expect to make a lick of sense to anyone else.
Craig... Your insistence that you are capable of determining the objective goodness of someone
??? WTF? How many times do I need to tell you that determination of Good people IS and MUST BE subjective? That we HAVE NO OBJECTIVE MEASURE for what makes a good person, you DO understand that reality, don't you?
You're making no sense.
Regarding your nutty example of a secretly evil Miss Sue... Do you TRULY know not a single person who is a genuinely good person? Because I do.
I know people who adopt orphans, work in a helping capacity like teachers, who lovingly raise good children, who listen to lonely people, who visit sick people, who care about their enemies (while at the same time, getting pretty sick of their misbehaviors), who generally are truthful, who donate to help people, who don't kill people, who don't beat their children, who support public libraries and thank police officers for being helpful, who give tips to waitresses and large tips if they think the waitress might be struggling, who recycle and try to not over-consume, who pick up garbage in the street, etc, etc...
I know genuinely good people in this world.
Do they sometimes get sick of their elderly mother who is being abusive and yell at them? Sure. Do they sometimes drop a piece of litter and feel too tired to pick it up and just let it go? Yes. Do they sometimes tell a beggar they have no money on them when they do? Yup. Did they, that one time, kick their cat when the cat had bit them? YES! They are NOT perfect people. But not being perfect does not mean you can't be good.
How are you defining Good?
Do you truly not know any good people (and I mean genuinely good consistently, not who are secretly engaging in awful behavior)?
Answer some questions.
And NO, there is no objective measure for Good, so I can't GIVE you what does not exist. Do you recognize that? Can you promise not to answer any more questions that've been answered multiple times and which are stupid on the face of it?
Dan,
My name on question is designed as a direct follow up to your question (not answer, question) in response to Stan’s initial question.
You’ve been quite clear that you believe that people are born free from sin, if this is true then it stands to reason that surely we’d see one or two per billion stay sin free throughout their life, wouldn’t we?
If you are finally going to be clear that there is no objective standard to determine good, then how about if you stop referring to “good people” in an objective manner.
I guess it’s pointless to mention that Stan, Art, and I aren’t talking about behavior, we’re talking about nature or ontology. I realize that it’s to your advantage to try to shift the discussion away from nature and toward actions. I even understand how important it is for you to use language that implies something objective, (“there ARE good people”), while simultaneously reveling in the fact that it’s simply your subjective opinion based on incomplete data. You keep saying that we’re saying that good=perfect, while you’re saying that acting good=being good.
You keep demanding that I define good, yet won’t give me the clarification I’ve repeatedly asked for, interesting.
Your blind insistence on ignoring the fact that I’ve answered some questions is simply ignoring the fact that I have, and pointing out why it’s a waste of time to do so. Thanks.
You’ve been quite clear that you believe that people are born free from sin, if this is true then it stands to reason that surely we’d see one or two per billion stay sin free throughout their life, wouldn’t we?
?? What do you have a hard time understanding?
Newborn babies HAVE NOT SINNED. That is reality. That is what I have said. You can't sin if you don't know anything/can't do anything.
Now, some philosophers and religionists over the years have SPECULATED that we are born with what they call a "sin nature" or a "predisposition to sin," and that's a fine theory, as far as it goes, but it remains an unproven and unprovable theory.
I don't have a problem (too much) with the notion that we have a "sin nature" or a tendency to sin. I just believe that we are NOT perfect creatures is probably the better and more literally correct way to state it. We can OBSERVE that we are not perfect creatures. That is a fact. We can therefore THEORIZE that we have something (somewhere? behind our gizzard, perhaps?) a "sin nature," but that is not provable.
This too, is a fact.
Do you disagree with any of the real world and demonstrable FACTS that I am starting with?
If not, by all means, PROVE your hunches about where I'm mistaken. You literally can't, but I am totally open to be proven wrong if you can. But you can't.
Now, given that at the very least, newborn babies literally have not sinned (and are thus, "sin free" in the literal factual sense) AND given that we are not perfect creatures, NO, it does NOT "stand that we'd see one or two billion people stay sin free..." Of course, it doesn't. WHY WOULD IT?
Seriously, what are you having a hard time understanding.
FACT: NEW BORNS have not sinned.
FACT: ALL PEOPLE are imperfect and will make mistakes in their lives, including what we call "sins."
FACT: The second fact does not invalidate the first fact.
FACT: The first fact does not insist that the second fact can't be possible.
If you are finally going to be clear that there is no objective standard to determine good, then how about if you stop referring to “good people” in an objective manner.
1. I HAVE LITERALLY BEEN CLEAR ON THAT POINT ALL ALONG. YOU CAN NOT POINT TO A PLACE WHERE I HAVE NOT BEEN CLEAR ON THAT. I'm sorry that repeatedly saying, "There is no objective measure for good" is unclear for you, but that does not mean that I have not been clear.
2. There literally ARE Good people that reasonable people understand to be good. That we can't objectively measure it does not mean it isn't true. Hell, YOU can go along - when pushed and pushed - to admit that there are people "who you would consider good."
This isn't rocket science. A person who is kind to others, helpful, loving, giving and consistently so - and who are NOT mean, murderous, violent, oppressive and consistently are not - they are the dictionary definition of Good. So, YES, there ARE good people, as we define good in the world.
HOW ARE YOU DEFINING GOOD?
Answer a single question. Take a stand. Do what I've done and make yourself clear.
I aren’t talking about behavior, we’re talking about nature or ontology. I realize that it’s to your advantage to try to shift the discussion away from nature and toward actions.
I'm FINE with your hunches about human theories about human nature. What I am asking quite clearly is, "PROVE IT." Support your claims/hunches that there are no people with "good natures" with data and facts.
And yes, I am asking you to define Good because YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT there not being "good people." I'm asking you to clarify what you mean when you say there are no good people. WHAT definition of Good are you using when you say that?
That there are no people with "Good natures..."? What does that mean? Explain yourself. That people have "corrupt natures..."? What does that mean? Explain yourself.
I'm just asking you to step up and explain what you mean. I know what calvinists traditionally mean. I'm asking you so I can speak to YOUR hunches and guesses, rather than deal with calvinism in the abstract.
Define Good.
If you won’t prove your position, why the incessant demands that I prove mine?
What you’ve done here, is essentially acknowledge that you believe (at some level) the observed reality that “all have sinned”. Now, you’re willing to make objective sounding, unproven, claims based on incomplete, limited, and subjective observations when you believe it benefits you, yet you claim that the same sort of observations don’t work as evidence of the view you claim to oppose.
Again, you keep ignoring that I have answered some of your questions, and my request for clarification on one of your questions. It’s that whole double standard again.
The problem with your demand for a simple definition of good in this context, is that good is a concept that has no meaning outside of a comparison. This makes “compared to what” critical. The other problem with a simple definition in this context is are you only looking at actions without the context of motivation.
I’ve pointed out, that there are people we perceive as good, relative to other people who we perceive as less good. In colloquial language we refer to these people as “good people”, but we’re merely referring to our subjective comparison of their observed actions and comparing those actions to others.
If one accepts your “it’s all a big mystery” construct, then saying that people are good (which is technically a comment on their nature or being), isn’t an accurate statement. The more accurate way to phrase it might be, “X’s actions are better than Y’s-actions.”. Absent an objective standard of good, there’s no basis to declare someone to be good.
I understand that you’re trying to impose a subjective, colloquial, perception based on inadequate information, onto the words of Jesus. In effect saying that you know what Jesus meant when He said that “no one is good but God.”.
The question then becomes, “If no one is good but God.”, is Jesus telling the truth? Is He really saying that as humans we are incapable of comprehending what good really is? Is He saying that in comparison to God’s goodness, that human goodness doesn’t stack up?
"Because it is a very human and biblical way of making points, why wouldn't he?"
Of course He did. The question is, was He doing so in this particular instance.
"Craig, do you realize and understand that your hunches about what Jesus meant when he said "there is no one good but God" are YOUR OWN subjective human hunches? That your opinions about this are not objective, but rather subjective?"
As are yours which makes my point. Of course, the only opinion I'm expressing is that the text accurately conveys what Jesus intended to convey. Given that it's entirely reasonable to start with the simplest, most obvious explanation first, that makes sense. If one wants to argue that the simple, plain, obvious meaning is wrong then proof would be in order.
"Do you recognize that you can NOT objectively prove that there are NO good people in the world?"
Do you realize that in the absence of an objective standard you can't prove that there are good people in the world. First, you'd need an objective standard for good. Then you'd need an objective standard to determine of someone's good works outweigh their not good works as well as the motivation behind those works. At that point, you might be able to prove your claim.
Do you recognize that most people would laugh off such a suggestion?
I realize that it's possible given your inability to articulate a standard. I also realize that what "most people" laugh at doesn't determine the objective truth of anything.
"You APPEAR to be making an objective claim: That there are NO "good people" in the world."
This is where you have problems, when you base your entire argument on what you perceive about how things "appear". The argument I am making is that Scripture in general, and Jesus in particular address the issue of whether humanity is born good. Therefore, I'm arguing that to make the claim that humans are born good (I believe you've used the terms "innocent" and "sinless"), means that the scriptural statements (particularly Jesus') need to be either proven wrong or ignored. Now, I am also arguing that this notion doesn't preclude people from being subjectively good, or appearing so. Finally, I'm arguing that (in the absence of objective proof) that you can't make the objective statement "There are good people." based on limited subjective evidence.
"You appear to be making a further claim: That when Jesus said there is no one good, but God, that he was defining Good to mean something more like "perfect," AND that he was NOT speaking metaphorically and that we should take it literally."
Again, your first problem is judging based on appearance. What I'm saying is that Jesus said what He said, and to argue that it somehow means something other than what He said requires proof to demonstrate that "no one" actually means "some people" or that good doesn't mean good. I've personally never made the argument you decided I've appeared to make, regarding the definition of good. What I have suggested is that it's possible, even likely, that Jesus (being God and all) might not be limited to a modern English language definition of the word good, and that it's possible, even reasonable, that He's using a different standard in measuring good. Perhaps, He looks at the "heart" (the inward motivation) for our actions and judges good by the standard of what motivates us rather than simply on our superficial actions. Finally, I am arguing that to definitively declare that Jesus was speaking figuratively would require a higher standard of proof than "Dan thinks it's reasonable.
But so much of that would require you to prove the things you say.
"given the reality"
You use this phrase frequently as a dodge to avoid making objective claims. Yet, isn't claiming that something is "reality" claiming that it is objectively true? Is there actually a subjective reality?
Reality: 1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
In Reality: in actual fact (used to contrast a false idea of what is true or possible with one
The reality is: used to assert that the truth of a matter is not what one would think or expect.
Given the actually definition of the word reality, it appears that you are making a factual claim about the meaning of Jesus words.
This is what happens when I have other things I should be doing, but am not motivated to do them.
ARE YOU making those claims as objective facts? Or do you recognize that this is your subjective opinion?
Sorry, the above didn't publish yesterday because it was too long. My apologies.
Back to Jesus statement.
The starting point then becomes, "Is God good?", if the answer is yes then the logical follow up is "What makes God good?". Is God good because of His nature or because of His actions? If God is good, If God is the definition (or perfect example, or whatever) of good, then isn't anything less than that simply a distorted reflection of true good?
This begs the question. IF people are truly good, then is it possible to be good enough to gain entrance to God's kingdom (heaven if you prefer) through our goodness? If the answer is yes, then there either needs to be a line or God is simply capricious and isn't going to let people know what He wants. If the answer is no, then how does one get to be a part of the kingdom of God (heaven if your prefer).
The last category I'll throw out is motive. If someone does a good deed, for a bad motive, are they a good person? Now the good deed may still benefit a third party, and it may seem good to an observer, but if we're talking about nature or ontology isn't the motivation a significant factor? If the answer is yes (motivation is significant), then who can accurately know and judge motivation? If the answer is no (motivation doesn't matter), then doesn't doing good have the potential to be simply an act of self gratification.
One aspect that you also haven't addressed is, what is sin. Stan (and others) posit that at it's core, sin in putting ourselves in the place of God. That all sin stems from the hubris of humanity deciding that our judgement is superior to God's. Obviously that manifests itself in many ways, but at it's core it comes down to selfishness and pride.
I don't raise these questions in the expectation that they'll be answered. Even if you did, I suspect that the answers would be less than edifying. I raise these questions to point out that defining good in the context of Jesus statement, might be more involved and less superficial than you'd like.
Let me put it this way. I'll define good as follows.
Good, adjective.
1. God, YHWH
2. of a favorable character or tendency
So, you define Good to be God.
So, when Jesus said there is no one Good but God, he literally meant there was no one God but God?
Okay.
Well, setting aside that your definition is not a universally accepted version and that there is another word for God ("God") and thus, no real point to re-define good to be God when we could just say GOD, and we could continue to use Good to mean, you know, Good, as it's normally understood...
Setting aside that, then is it your human hunch that God created us as NOT GOD and thus NOT GOOD?
And, if so, is it your further human hunch that since we are NOT GOD, then ALL of humanity is by default, BAD? Corrupt? Evil?
And if so, is it your further human hunch that since we are NOT Good (meaning we're simply NOT GOD), that we "deserve" to be tortured for eternity for the "sin" of being "not God..."?
...that God created us as NOT God, knowing that we'd be SO not God that what we deserved would be an eternity of torture in punishment for the crime of being "not God..."? That God, in essence, created us as hell/torture fodder?
And if so, do you recognize how evil/corrupt/insane your notions about God sound to people who are concerned about Goodness, Justice, Grace and Godliness (in the good sense)?
Craig... Stan (and others) posit that at it's core, sin in putting ourselves in the place of God. That all sin stems from the hubris of humanity deciding that our judgement is superior to God's.
With the exception of a few insane people and some conservatives, I don't know anyone who does/has done this. Put ourselves in the place of God?? Who would do such a thing?
Where you go on to talk about the hubris of humans (like the Pharisees, for instance) thinking THEIR JUDGEMENT is superior to God's... What if you are mistaken about something. Where you assure me that because YOU read a line in the Bible that says "there is no one good but God" and YOU DECIDE that this line should be taken literally and thus, we should understand and believe YOU when you say, "There are NO GOOD people in the world..." What if you're mistaken and God says to you, "WTF? Of course there are good people in the world? Do you not understand hyperbole and other figurative language??!" Does that mean that you have placed YOUR JUDGEMENT as being superior to God's?
At any rate, I don't do that and no one I know does that (again, with the exception of some folks with mental disorders and perhaps some conservatives). So, I haven't addressed it because it's not anything I'm aware of anyone doing in any serious manner.
Craig... I’ve pointed out, that there are people we perceive as good, relative to other people who we perceive as less good.
I have no need to call people Good relative to other people. I call people Good who fit the common standard English definition of Good.
Good: (MW) an honest, helpful, or morally good person
(Free Dictionary): a person who is good to other people
If I see someone - Miss Sue, for instance - who is consistently (not perfectly, but generally and regularly) honest and a moral person, a person who is good to other people, kind, considerate, helpful, etc, then I can REASONABLY say, "Miss Sue is a Good person."
On WHAT BASIS would I insist that she isn't Good, if she fits the definition of Good and would be recognized by most people as Good?
You keep falling back to the suggestion of some secret set of "sins" or hidden "badness" in her life. I'm saying there is no evidence of them nor any evidence of bad motives. Indeed, I know "Miss Sue" and know her well enough to know that there are no secret serious bad motives.
I know her well enough to know that she isn't perfect, she gets tired of helping people or may just not like another person very much and so isn't especially helpful to that person... AND YET, she is kind, she is considerate and generous and helpful. She's not perfect, but she's Good.
ON WHAT BASIS would you suggest we ought to consider her "Not Good..."?
ALL I'm saying is IF you want to make that kind of claim, SUPPORT IT. If you don't want to make that claim, then fine, we're in agreement.
First comment, I’m simply pointing out that if one wants to understand what it means to be good, God is the best possible example. We see that “God is Love.”, and don’t make these sorts of stupid arguments. Further, by ignoring the second definition I offered and ignoring multiple comments, your once again arguing against a straw man.
Second comment. Your your determination to make the actual point of my post is impressive.
Third comment. I’ve addressed the problems with your absurdly contrived imaginary friend. If you’re going to ignore the problems by adding imaginary traits, you aren’t actually solving your problems. Further, unless you can prove that you can draw objective conclusions (“Miss Sue is a Good person.”), from incomplete, subjective observations you should probably stop making those claims.
Your irrational obsession with trying to establish the one individual (hypothetical) that allows you to extrapolate out to a universal is both tiresome as well as illogical. You further want to extrapolate from subjective observation of selected behavior to making objective claims about human nature.
When you make claims about what someone “is”, your making an objective claim about their nature. An objective claim you can’t prove.
Finally, good is an adjective. In English we don’t capitalize adjectives. I’ve noticed that you tend to capitalize words like this in a strange attempt to make them more than they are.
Dan,
What I find fascinating is that if we go back to the disciples and move forward through Church history, we don’t ever see this unwillingness to acknowledge the sinful, rebellious nature of mankind. Paul calls himself “chief of sinners”, yet here’s Dan arguing “we’re Good”. (At least some of us are Good) I have no problem admitting that I’m a sinner saved by grace. I’m perfectly content to acknowledge that it’s not me, it’s Christ.
Between that and the “I’ve never put my judgement above that of God”, it’s just such an unusual posture for one who claims to follow Jesus.
I suspect it traces back to your hunch that the gospel isn’t so much about forgiveness of sin, as about economic inequality (or privileging the poor, or whatever).
When you start from the position that humans are born without sin, and they people are Good, it all falls together.
This is a Dan comment from another thread that belongs here.
“Craig, 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."
I was asking more about your earlier deep skepticism you've been repeating over and over, as if we "truly" knew the people we think of as "good" - all their faults and flaws, THEN we might judge otherwise.
Here's a more reasonable experiment... off the top of my head, I can think of... probably at least two dozen people I know personally and know well enough to know that they are good people - very good people.
(Reminder: Good: of a favorable character or tendency; virtuous, right, commendable; kind, benevolent, etc or, as the Greek word translated Righteous is defined in the Bible: integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting)
Given more time, I'd bet I could think of 100 or more people in my small circle of friends and colleagues I know well that can reasonably be called good... VERY good, even.
How many people do you know that you'd count as good (as good is defined by English speakers or by biblical writers using the Greek word for righteous)?”
Then you are asking about a caricature that you’ve invented all on your own, if your going to make claims about what I said, have the balls to quote me.
As to your “experiment”, it hinges on your false notion of my position.
Ad I’ve ssid previously, the concept of total depravity (which is what has your panties in a wad), doesn’t preclude the “superficial” types of actions that we as humans would find to be good.
This is where your refusal to explain what was wrong with the definition of TD that you provided would have been helpful,
So I have no problem saying that people can do and be good by human standards.
The problem is that you’re trying to use language about observed actions to draw conclusions about unobserved actions and motivations. That’s where we differ.
So, when Jesus says “there is no one good but God.”, the unanswered question is what does He mean by “good”? It seems likely that if Jesus knew enough to make the statement about God, that it’s likely that He knows more than we do. That when He compares our “good” to God, that our “good” isn’t quite as good as we might think.
That’s the disconnect. Because you start with humanity as perfect and totally sinless, you appear to fell that you can equate human good to God’s good. It’s essentially trying to take advantage of the same English word “good” being measured by two different standards. Unless, you are going to say that you have a complete understanding of what good means when applied to God.
I’ve said this before, you’re talking a semantic question and trying to make a theological statement based on semantics.
Like most things your failure comes in the foundation of your argument. By taking TD out of the framework of the rest of the construct, and interpreting it to mean something more than it dies, you’ve built in sand.
TD, is essentially the question, “What’s wrong with humanity”, the rest of the formula answers the question. You’ve divorced TD from IG, and in doing so left out a significant piece of the puzzle. You get so hung up on your distortion of TD, that you ignore the fact that the answer is “irresistible grace”. You choose to ignore the fact that the answer to TD is grace that can’t be resisted.
“I was asking more about your earlier deep skepticism you've been repeating over and over, as if we "truly" knew the people we think of as "good" - all their faults and flaws, THEN we might judge otherwise.”
I’m clearly more comfortable with the notion of a sovereign God, and I find the notion that Gods grace is described as irresistible much more interesting than dwelling on TD. One problem people have with the TULIP formulation is they insist on attacking one point without realizing how interconnected they are. It’s worse when the attack is based on a distortion of the point in question.
I’m not, and never would suggest that the Calvinist formula is 100% perfect, it’s clearly not, yet I’ve yet to find an alternative that lines up with scripture more closely. Even with that said, I’d never insist that someone who doesn’t buy that formula is wrong. You seem determined to pick a fight over something that isn’t worth fighting over.
There are some elements of your theology that I find troubling, shallow, and divorces from the meta narrative of the Bible, and I’ve pointed out scripture that disagrees with you. If you don’t buy the scripture, then offer an alternative or shut up. Live and let live as it were. The final fallacy I’ll address is with scripture. If I quote scripture, I’m doing exactly that. I’m taking it at face value, and quoting it. I’m not conflating it with my own words, I’m not putting myself in God’s place. I’m simply and respectfully saying that I value scripture highly, and this is what scripture has to say.
If that offends you, or if you have a problem with what scripture says, provide a better interpretation with support from something beyond your personal experience. Or, shut up, either way I don’t care.
If I’m wrong, I’ll take the chance that I’m better off being wrong for sticking too close to the plain meaning, rather than trying to force a contrary meaning onto a passage.
One reason why I’m reluctant to answer your questions is that simply putting the answer in context is a huge job, and given your history (just today) of ignoring answers that aren’t simplistic and shallow, it’s just not worth it.
This is from somewhere else but it doesn't belong there.
"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.
"My point is that you all suggest that there's no such thing as good people."
No, that's a misrepresentation of my position. I "suggest" that people are born with a nature that causes us to place ourselves and our desires as the arbiter of what is right and that our natural bent is toward selfishness. I further suggest that the meta narrative of scripture supports this notion. Further, I suggest that Jesus, among others says explicitly that "no one" is good. Paul says "all have sinned". I could go on, but it's unlikely that 50 citations will make a dent in your skepticism. I suggest that I agree with the plain meaning of scripture on this issue. I suggest that what you're dancing around with all the attempts to cast people as good is the notion that we all sin, and that fundamentally sin is rebellion against God.
"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...""
No that's not exactly what I've said. I've noted that the construct of TD, (which you seem to violently hate), does not preclude fallen, sinful humans from doing good. I have drawn a distinction between what Jesus called "the Heart" (in this case I'm using the term nature) or our nature, and the actions that we engage in. I'm further suggesting that when Jesus says "Only God is good." that the Merriam Webster dictionary definition isn't His standard. Or, put another way. If God has all of the attributes we ascribe to Him, and if one of those is "good", then it seems to follow that God's goodness is exponentially more good that humans. Something scripture addresses by the way. So, it seems logical that when we use our inadequate human languages to describe God, that our words don't really do Him justice. It seems as though applying the Merriam Webster definition of good to God, both limits and demeans His true goodness.
As I've said before, you're trying to turn a semantic argument into a theological argument.
"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."
I'd suggest that asking for any human to "prove" the exact nature of God's goodness is an absurd request. I'd further suggest that the citation of Mark 10 isn't so much to end the discussion, but as a representative for the multitude of scripture passages that echo the same or similar sentiment. In this case, it is exacerbated by dealing with someone who has a history of dismissing, minimizing, or ignoring anything that isn't attributed to Jesus. Therefore, your inability to demonstrate conclusively that Jesus categorically mean something other than "No one is good, but God", renders adding other scripture superfluous. The fact that the meta narrative of scripture echo's Jesus words both BC and AD, is moot until the Jesus quote is debunked.
As far as supporting my position that everyone sins, I just look at every one I know and realize that the current sin percentage is 100%. (Not that everyone I know sins 100% of the time, but that everyone I know has sinned at least once). If you think that you simply announcing that you know good people seals the argument once and for all, then my restating of your argument from observation is equally valid.
"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."
I'll simply point out the obvious that you asking a question, then answering the question with your opinion doesn't settle the matter in any way shape or form. It's at least as rational to say that Jesus was knew where the man was headed with his question, and responded using the terminology of His questioner to make a point. The question being asked wasn't "Jesus, are there good people in the world?". The question was "What must I do do inherent eternal life?". When pressed, the man's response was essentially "I'm a good person, Look at all the good things I've done.". He literally said that he had kept all of the commandments "since I was a boy". Yet Jesus said, that's not enough, you've been good but not good enough to "inherit eternal life". Jesus essentially said, "You haven't done enough good to inherit eternal life".
When asked "Then who can be saved." Jesus responds "With man this is impossible but not with God. With God all things are possible." (FYI, "all things" would seem to include the "rich man" gaining eternal life)
This conversation between Jesus, the rich young man, and His disciples gets to the heart of the matter. In this case, the goal of being good is to "inherit eternal life". He's asking "How good do I have to be?", and Jesus answer is that it's impossible to be good enough to "inherit eternal life".
This raises a few points.
1. Is this eternal life the equivalent of Heaven? (I'd suggest it's the most likely answer)
2. If the end goal is to "inherit eternal life", how good is good enough according to the dictionary definition?
3. Can anyone ever be good enough to "inherit eternal life"?
4. Is it possible that there could be a level of good that meets the dictionary definition, but doesn't get you "eternal life"?
5. If it is impossible "with man", doesn't it make sense that God would put some mechanism in place for people to be "saved"?
Unfortunately, we're talking about two different things here. You're talking about good enough to please our friends and neighbors.
I'm talking about what gets us to "eternal life".
It seems reasonable that the standard for the second might logically be higher than for the first. Maybe it's so high that God sent someone to help us clear the bar.
"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."
First, how about you support your claims with something beyond your opinion?
1. I've never claimed that there were no good people in the world, if limited to the dictionary definition as the only criteria. That doesn't negate that we are all fallen and sinful.
2. First, there is no logical reason to believe otherwise. Second, you'll need to prove that Jesus was offering a "figurative" definition of good and that His figurative definition coincides with your literal definition. Third, Jesus was explaining how good one has to be to "inherit eternal life", not just get the Dan seal of approval.
3. I've never disputed the definition of good in the English language. What I've suggested and expanded on is that Jesus wasn't just talking about good in general, he was talking about good enough to "inherit eternal life". Again, I'd suggest that it's not unreasonable to suspect a higher standard for the second option.
4. I've never even hinted at this, so I'm not going to support a claim I've not made.
I'll sum it up like this. It seems as though you'd like to keep this about "good people" and how wonderful they are. Because doing so takes the discussion out of the realm of subjective, observation of a limited number of people"s actions and moves it to a different level. It allows you to not get into the existence of Heaven and Hell, or sin, or if God really might have some rules. Or if it's only possible with God, how does that work? What if I can't good myself into God's Kingdom? Ultimately it touches on all sorts of doctrinal/theological questions that you've already declared closed and that you are convinced about your opinions being "reality". This is why I've held off on answering some of your questions, because your asking tiny, questions that are more significant than a short pithy answer, and that bear on other topics. Given that, don't expect this much detail all the time.
Your problem is that every single person you identify as good has done some bad things, and every single person you identify as bad has done some good things. In reality good and bad isn't two ends of a spectrum. Where you have a problems is that you dismiss motivation and intent in favor of focusing on actions, and you have nothing but the most subjective of standards to label someone good or bad.
What's worse? Doing some good things for a large group of people you don't know at all, or doing some bad things that deeply hurt the few people who are the closest to you?
I know the whole creation thing gives you problems, but when God created the physical world He called it “good”, when He created people they were “very good”, do you really think that your 21st century dictionary definition accurately describes good in that context?
At church this morning I realized that it kind of comes down to this decision.
Do I want to put my hope in my ability to be a good person, or put my hope in a God who is the epitome of good.
It just seems to come back to focusing on ourselves or focusing on God.
The more I research this concept of good people, the more I’m struck by how it’s less about what you do and more about why you do it. It’s almost like doing good things for bad reasons is worse than not doing good things at all. It’s almost like what you are isn’t what you do.
At one point a bunch of people came to Jesus and said “Look at what we’ve done.” Look at the good things we’ve done in your name, aren’t we good people. Yet Jesus says “Go away, I don’t know you.”. It seems reasonable to conclude that He wasn’t judging them by their actions, but by something else entirely.
I suspect that plenty of folx would have labeled them as good people, yet Jesus didn’t. I wonder why?
I'm in the midst of an interesting book about the perils of being a good person, or at least of doing good deeds. One theme of the book centers around why we do good deeds. It talks about "Christian Karma", essentially the concept that if we do good things that God will do good things for us. It is confirming my suspicion that attitude and motivation is at least as important as actions when determining who is a good person.
Unfortunately, that is the one area where we are unable to make determinations about other people. What if people we think are good have succumbed believing in "Christian Karma", or do good works primarily to bask in the adulation and praise of others? Are they really good people then?
Post a Comment