In my Bible study this morning, we inevitably got around to the topic of sin. It got me thinking about sin, good, bad, etc and how we see ourselves. I think that where we have trouble is comparison, who we compare ourselves to, and who we look to for dealing with our sin.
It's said that "Comparison is the thief of joy." by some, unless it's comparing our sins. Inevitably we compare our sins to others real and imagined sins and we grade on a curve. We tell ourselves that we aren't anywhere near as bad as that other person, and that we've only committed a few minor sins. We tell ourselves that sin is just "missing the mark", and convince ourselves that we always barely miss that "mark". When we compare our sins to others, it makes us feel pretty good about ourselves, "God can't be upset with me because I'm an angel compared to...". I know we've all done this, taken joy in our imagined superiority over others. I know that some of us, kind of revel in that superiority, we're proud of how good we are. Compared to others.
But what if our comparison was wrong? What if we're not meant to compare our self to others, and grade ourselves on a curve? What it there's a higher standard that we should be comparing ourselves to?
Likewise what if we stopped measuring how good we are by comparing ourselves to others? Again, what if there was a different standard? What if our motivations were more important than our actions? What if doing good meant real, hard, significant, sacrifice?
What if our good, our bad, our sin, wasn't self graded and wasn't graded on a curve of our own making? What if the test was pass/fail?
Finally, what if it wasn't up to us? What if our performance, and success wasn't based on anything we do or can do? What if, it's really not all focused on us at all? What if we're not the center of everything?
116 comments:
I'm guessing you're more suggesting "What is" rather than "What if"...at least in a number of those instances. This is the question of "no one is good but God", as if that can't be true while our own earthly comparisons against other mortals can't be useful.
When Christ said, "no one is good but God", I believe He was indeed properly defining the word as being a manner of perfection...God's perfection...and the best we can do is strive to be perfect, knowing all the while we can never truly be in this life. That doesn't mean we're liars to describe people as "good", but in doing so, we're not comparing them to God, as you imply. Thus, when we regard another as "good" or "a good person", it's really a recognition of their striving to be good rather than their true state as a mortal human being.
It's not uncommon for even serious Christians to bristle when reminded of their being sinners...even despite having said "we're all sinners" themselves! No one wants to be regarded as a bad person, to be reminded of their moral shortcomings or having them highlighted. No. We wish only to be judged by others on the basis of the good things we do, and hope that God will do so as well.
I know one guy who, in defending the proposition that there are indeed many "good" people, will immediately list all the wonderful things they do so as to prove his point. But this fails as it purposely omits their failings and imperfections as if they have no bearing whatsoever, or are to be dismissed on account of their good deeds. It's almost as if we're to accept these people as being without blemish, without sin...as perfect, despite the token caveat in his assurance this person doesn't intend to imply such a thing.
Note that even "Goodfellas" made the point that in their minds, mobsters can somehow be "good fellows" by virtue of doing things favored by other mobsters. They're "stand up guys" for not ratting out others when their own liberty is on the line, and other such things.
I'm trying not to impose a Christian worldview, or a particular worldview, on the questions. Obviously, many people would assume that there is an "is", but I'm being a bit more open.
I agree with your conclusion about Christ's claim, but I'm not starting there.
But I see it as the difference between absolutely good, and relatively good. Which lines up with what you've said. I have no problem describing someone as "good" as compared to other people as long as it's understood that it's only a relative comparison.
We tell ourselves that sin is just "missing the mark", and convince ourselves that we always barely miss that "mark".
That's literally the meaning of the Greek word used in the Bible. It's not that we "tell ourselves" that, it's the meaning of the word.
When we compare our sins to others, it makes us feel pretty good about ourselves, "God can't be upset with me because I'm an angel compared to...". I know we've all done this
Speak for yourself. I'm sure people who suffer from anxiety or who are uncertain about their worth and value may do this, but I don't think it's a universal thing. Interesting guess, though.
Craig:
what if we stopped measuring how good we are by comparing ourselves to others? Again, what if there was a different standard? What if our motivations were more important than our actions? What if doing good meant real, hard, significant, sacrifice?
What if the moon has unicorns running around, flying and farting rainbows? It's an interesting possibility, but what of it?
And what if it is wrong to guess that there ARE no people doing real, hard, significant sacrificial giving? I know many such people - indeed, probably most people I know are like this, to greater and lesser degrees.
Do you acknowledge the reality that we can see that there are good people (GOOD, as good is normally defined and understood) in the world, pouring out their lives in love and kindness, sacrificially?
Craig, with more "What ifs..." but no answers:
Finally, what if it wasn't up to us? What if our performance, and success wasn't based on anything we do or can do? What if, it's really not all focused on us at all? What if we're not the center of everything?
What if our behavior wasn't up to us? Are you guessing that we're automatons, incapable of making decisions for good, evil and in between?
Again, in the real world, we can see good people out of the goodness of their hearts doing good things. UNLESS you're theorizing some kind of puppet master who controls our good and bad behavior? Or maybe you could explain what you're trying to get at with this imaginary and vague hypothetical.
For my part, I'm just looking at measurable, observable reality. There ARE good people out there doing good things out of a kind and giving heart. I know such people. I would guess that maybe you're such a person, but you can answer that.
As to "what if we're not the center... what if it's not "focused all on us..."? The good people I know do not even come close to thinking that kind of thing. That's kind of the point. These are giving, kind, good-hearted people observably being good for the sake of others, not for their own sake.
Are you suggesting you don't know good people?
With all these vague and unanswered "What ifs..." I have no idea of what you're trying to say.
What if you made yourself and your meaning clear?
I know there are some people who use such vague and unsupported Whatifferies to try to imply some ill will or malfeasance on the part of others, but you can make it clear if you want.
Do you see Good People?
What it there's a higher standard that we should be comparing ourselves to?
I suspect what you're trying to get at without making any commitments or taking any stands is that we should compare ourselves to a perfect, almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Is that the case?
If so, would it not be a rather arrogant and crazily irrational starting point to assume we're as perfect as a perfect almighty being? Wouldn't it be a little irrationally crazy to say that unless we're as GOOD AS GOD, then we can't say we're good at all? That indeed, we're actually evil, in comparison?
And to take it to the next stage that conservative traditionalists have taken it, wouldn't it be crazily insane to say "UNLESS imperfect, fallible humans are AS PERFECT AS GOD, THEN they deserve to be tortured for an eternity?"
Those are real questions that will, no doubt, go unanswered. They always do.
Marshal falsely claimed:
But this fails as it purposely omits their failings and imperfections as if they have no bearing whatsoever, or are to be dismissed on account of their good deeds.
Of course, I've been quite clear on this point. These observably good people that I know ARE in fact, imperfect. They don't love perfectly, they don't give completely, they DO get tired, frustrated, angry. They sometimes lash out at the driver in front of them who cut them off in traffic. Mind you, they don't kill them or assault them, just get angry at them and call them a damned stupidhead.
They no doubt, especially in their younger days, took a pencil that didn't belong to them and cheated on a test and were unkind to their spouse or parents or siblings.
They are imperfect people with all the foibles of imperfect people. More importantly, they are NOT an almighty perfect God and never will be (nor would they dream of comparing themselves to God!) Imperfect people will always be imperfect people.
AND YET, at the same time, they are demonstrably, observably good. They do kind deeds out of the goodness of their hearts. They help people find housing, find jobs, repair relationships, get off of drugs. They stay awake all night with their friends with addictions or mental illness or illness to take care of and support them the best they can. Not out of fear of an angry god or to get paid, just because they're doing unto others... They're being kind, good people.
Imperfect people can STILL be good people. Do you disagree?
If so, based upon what?
When oh, when will answers to these questions ever be even attempted?
Some more traditional-sounding writer (someone who self-identifies as a Pentecostal) speaking in words you may find easier to hear:
In his warning to “Watch out for false prophets,” aka bad religious people, Jesus encouraged his followers to discern people’s fruit. He tells a short parable about trees, but
he’s talking about people.
Good trees (people) bear good fruit, and
bad trees (people) bear bad fruit.
Thus, by their fruit, you will recognise them, Jesus concludes.
Jesus recognised the inherent goodness in most people,
but he also challenged us to remain vigilant,
especially when it comes to dodgy religious people.
https://baysidechurch.com.au/blog/people-are-inherently-good/
Yet, when you fail to define the "mark", it's easy to tell yourself that you're just barely missing the undefined "mark". As long as you stick to the vague, undefined, "barely missing the mark", it's easier to tell yourself that you're a good person.
"It's an interesting possibility, but what of it?"
Well, since you didn't really answer the question, I'll have to guess. It seems as though your response indicates that you doubt the existence of any other standard beyond comparing ourselves to others, is this what you believe?
For someone who asks lots of absurd questions, you don't do well at all with questions asked by others, do you.
"And what if it is wrong to guess that there ARE no people doing real, hard, significant sacrificial giving?"
What an absolutely ridiculous, absurd, stupid question. If I didn't say that there are "no people", why would you assume that I meant something other than what I said?
"Do you acknowledge the reality that we can see that there are good people..."
I may have to impose additional commenting restrictions on Dan. When he "asks" idiotic questions like this, which demonstrate that he hasn't read what I've written, I need to think about editing the idiocy out of his comments.
"Craig, with more "What ifs..." but no answers:"
Either Dan is simply engaging on obtuse stupidity, or he's ignorant of the notion of open ended questions. This bizarre notion that I cannot ask open ended questions to spark respectful discussion, unless I provide answers is simply one of the dumbest things I've heard today.
"What if our behavior wasn't up to us? Are you guessing that we're automatons, incapable of making decisions for good, evil and in between?"
No, what a ridiculous question. What if the determination of what or who is good or evil isn't up to us? What if there is a defined "mark" and something or someone who can determine objectively whether or not we hit the "mark"? What if we don't grade ourselves and don't get to grade on a curve of our own making?
"Again, in the real world, we can see good people out of the goodness of their hearts doing good things. UNLESS you're theorizing some kind of puppet master who controls our good and bad behavior? Or maybe you could explain what you're trying to get at with this imaginary and vague hypothetical."
Answer the questions, or don't, I don't care. But I'm not rewriting my post to suit your preconceptions.
"For my part, I'm just looking at measurable, observable reality. There ARE good people out there doing good things out of a kind and giving heart. I know such people. I would guess that maybe you're such a person, but you can answer that."
Tell me that you didn't read the post and comments, without telling me you didn't read the post and comments.
"Are you suggesting you don't know good people?"
No. I'm suggesting that "good" is a relative term based only on comparison to others.
"With all these vague and unanswered "What ifs..." I have no idea of what you're trying to say."
I think you're referring to open ended discussion questions, that are intended to be answered. I know answering questions, especially when you don't have control scares you, but this is ridiculous. In case you're too stupid to figure it out, I'm "trying to" ask questions about possibilities beyond defining good/bad/evil based on or imperfect, biased observations and comparisons to others.
"What if you made yourself and your meaning clear?"
What if I'm trying to encourage others to answer? What If I'm simply asking questions that interest me as a way to gain information? What if not everything is about other people jumping through your hoops and behaving in the ways you demand?
Craig:
What if the determination of what or who is good or evil isn't up to us?
What if? Is anyone making that ridiculous claim in any sort of serious manner? If so, where is the data?
It's an empty, meaningless question. We are told IN THE BIBLE to look to the good trees producing good fruit. OF COURSE, we can recognize if there are good people and of course, there ARE good people.
Again: Are you suggesting that there are NOT good people?
Craig:
Answer the questions or don't...
what a ridiculous question. What if the determination of what or who is good or evil isn't up to us? What if there is a defined "mark" and something or someone who can determine objectively whether or not we hit the "mark"? What if we don't grade ourselves and don't get to grade on a curve of our own making?
I'm answering them. OF COURSE, we can determine if there are good people in the world. Who is suggesting that we can't recognize - "determine" in your words - good and bad people? Are YOU suggesting that?
These are empty rhetorical questions with obvious answers. Are you seriously wanting ANSWERS to these rhetorical questions that you almost certainly aren't willing to answer yourself? I can answer more of them, but it's more of the same.
"The answer is that the question is built upon a false and unproven premise." Period. That's the direct and clear answer to most of your questions.
"I suspect what you're trying to get at without making any commitments or taking any stands is that we should compare ourselves to a perfect, almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Is that the case?"
Well, you're batting .000 when it comes to pretending like what you "suspect" is accurate. But, what if this "mark" you so blithely refer to IS a perfectly holy, sinless, almighty, all-knowing God? If that is the case, would you still claim that people were close to hitting that "mark"? You really either don't understand the concept of asking/answering open ended questions, or you are uncomfortable/scared to answer questions when you think that there's some hidden purpose and you can't control the outcome.
"If so, would it not be a rather arrogant and crazily irrational starting point to assume we're as perfect as a perfect almighty being?"
I don't know, would it? Would it be "irrational" if it was more complex than that?
"Wouldn't it be a little irrationally crazy to say that unless we're as GOOD AS GOD, then we can't say we're good at all?"
IF someone were saying that, that could be a good question. Is someone saying that? Jesus seemed to be saying something like that, was He wrong, or is there a secret meaning that only certain special people know?
"That indeed, we're actually evil, in comparison?"
Again, who exactly is saying that everyone is "evil"?
"And to take it to the next stage that conservative traditionalists have taken it, wouldn't it be crazily insane to say "UNLESS imperfect, fallible humans are AS PERFECT AS GOD, THEN they deserve to be tortured for an eternity?"
Well, leave it to you to just make shit up and pretend like it's accurate or real.
"Those are real questions that will, no doubt, go unanswered. They always do."
Coming from someone who has answered precisely zero of the questions asked, this is f'ing hilarious. To start off by not answering ANY questions asked, then immediately start bitching about what you imagine might happen is a new low, even for you.
I'm not going to bother with Dan's screed addressed to Art.
What I am going to do is to establish one single, simple, non negotiable question that Dan must answer is a simple, direct, unequivocal manner, before any additional comments of his will be posted.
Dan, you insist that sin is "missing the mark", so please tell me exactly what the "mark" being missed is and how close to the "mark" most humans get?
No simple, direct, unequivocal answer, no commenting on this thread. I rarely take this extreme step, but in this case it seems reasonable.
But fine, if you seriously want answers to these empty rhetorical questions, here you go, one by one:
But what if our comparison was wrong?
The question is based upon an unsupported and probably generally false guess - that we humans always compare ourselves to other bad people to get an idea of if we're good or not. Again, I'm sure there are some anxiety and guilt-ridden people who may do this but I have no data to guess it's normative. It's certainly not proven.
What if we're not meant to compare our self to others, and grade ourselves on a curve?
Same as above.
What it there's a higher standard that we should be comparing ourselves to?
A higher standard of what? Being Good? By being good, I think most humanity understands that it means just what we think it means: Being kind and helpful out of a desire to see the world a better place. That IS good, by definition and I see no data to suggest some alternate, non-standard definition of Good should be assumed.
Likewise what if we stopped measuring how good we are by comparing ourselves to others?
I don't know many people who do this, so it's based on a faulty premise, I'd guess. You certainly haven't demonstrated that this comparison is normative.
Again, what if there was a different standard?
Again, I see no evidence that there is a different standard and you have presented no evidence of such.
What if our motivations were more important than our actions?
Good people recognize that motivation IS important. I'd suggest this is a normative understanding common to much of humanity. Of course. The point is not in question. You certainly haven't presented data to suggest that this isn't commonly understood.
What if doing good meant real, hard, significant, sacrifice?
Again, I think that IS the normal understanding of Good. Doing nothing and simply "not being bad" is not what most people consider being good. You've presented no data to make me guess your premise is correct.
What if our good, our bad, our sin, wasn't self graded and wasn't graded on a curve of our own making? What if the test was pass/fail?
I see no data and you have presented no data that suggests that "Good" is graded on a curve or otherwise or that being good is only pass/fail. It's an irrational position not supported by reality, seems to me. Certainly not supported by you.
Finally, what if it wasn't up to us?
What if our performance, and success wasn't based on anything we do or can do?
Still unsure. We can see (the Bible and reason tell us) good people. We can recognize good behavior, the good fruit that is borne by good trees. It's there to be seen. Period.
Now, it is indeed true that not all humans are consistently good and maybe some are not good at all. But we CAN make decisions to do good things and we CAN recognize good in others.
Are you saying we can't?
What if, it's really not all focused on us at all? What if we're not the center of everything?
I know of few people who think this way and you've presented no data to make me think otherwise.
Is that a good enough start?
I can do this all day, answer empty rhetorical questions with generally obvious answers. I wonder if either of you all will answer the reasonable and deeper questions that I'm asking.
I've answered your question (and once again, I'm guessing - although the Bible doesn't say - that we're talking about missing the mark of PERFECTION. THAT is a direct and clear answer). So, we'll see if you answer any of mine.
"Are you suggesting you don't know good people?"
No. I'm suggesting that "good" is a relative term based only on comparison to others.
That's not what I asked. I asked DO YOU KNOW GOOD PEOPLE?
YES, good is relative, but it is also observable and measurable. and I do not know that your expressed theory that good is based only on comparison to others. GOOD has a definition, you know this.
IF there is a person who truly wants to see the world to be a better place
and they want to see an end or alleviation of suffering and pain
AND they take steps (imperfect, but still, steps)
to make the world a better place,
THEN, they are objectively, reasonably GOOD as Good is defined.
Where am I mistaken?
Do you know good people as good is normally understood?
Do you know people who are genuinely kind and helpful and do helpful kind acts simply out of love for humanity, creation, the world?
How sad if you can't easily answer that with a resounding, YES.
I'm not going to post Dan's comments until he answers the question upon which his commenting privilege is contingent. But I'm going to excerpt a couple of things to try to make a point.
"What if?"
Yes, that's the question I asked. Why not answer it simply and directly?
"Is anyone making that ridiculous claim in any sort of serious manner?"
Is there some requirement that a claim must be made in some "sort of serious manner" before the theoretical ramifications of a question can be addressed? If so, who made this rule, and where can it be found?
The tenor of your "questions" seems to indicate that you do not believe that there is something or someone outside or individual humans which can make decisions about good/bad. Is this your position? That the only way to determine good/bad is by comparison to others?
"If so, where is the data?"
Since when to open ended, hypothetical, questions need "data"? You ignore "data" you don't like, so why ask for something you might ignore if it doesn't confirm your biases?
"We are told IN THE BIBLE to look to the good trees producing good fruit. OF COURSE, we can recognize if there are good people and of course, there ARE good people."
Clearly you didn't pay attention to my post.
"Again: Are you suggesting that there are NOT good people?"
Again, I'm not "suggesting" anything, I'm asking open ended questions. Do you understand the difference? Why are you so hesitant to simply answer the questions asked? Why are you so obsessed with trying to find some hidden agenda, that you think I'm "suggesting" instead of just providing honest answers to the questions asked?
And just to be clear:
Dan, you insist that sin is "missing the mark", so please tell me exactly what the "mark" being missed is
Perfection would be my guess.
...and how close to the "mark" most humans get?
We are not perfect people. *
(*With the exception of babies, I don't know how any case could be formed to suggest that babies are imperfect - but feel free to try to actually make a case if you want).
BUT, being GOOD does not demand being perfect. They're two different things.
Do you disagree?
If so, based upon what?
I can answer your questions all day, just as I am doing. Your turn, friend.
The tenor of your "questions" seems to indicate that you do not believe that there is something or someone outside or individual humans which can make decisions about good/bad. Is this your position? That the only way to determine good/bad is by comparison to others?
No. We determine good by recognizing Good when we see it. We can recognize "good fruit" and know that they come from "good trees." That is something humans can do.
Do you disagree?
And the metaphor there is that "good fruit" is good behavior from good people. IF people behave in good ways - they have kind, compassionate hearts that result in taking kind, helpful, loving actions - THEN they are good people. According to Jesus.
Do you disagree?
Further, Jesus nor God have ever insisted that we need to be perfect to be good.
Do you disagree?
"I've answered your question (and once again, I'm guessing - although the Bible doesn't say - that we're talking about missing the mark of PERFECTION. THAT is a direct and clear answer)."
I can only hope that this is your attempt to answer the question upon which your commenting privileges are contingent, but as it's vague and unclear, I'm not sure.
You claim you've answered the single question I'd asked, yet strangely can't provide a reference of where this alleged answer can be found, and are too lazy to restate this mysterious, hidden answer here. What your somewhat incoherent parenthetical statement seems to be saying is that you believe that the "mark" you speak of (but haven't defined) is "perfection". Am I correct in deciphering your vague response? Do you define the "mark" that is "missed" as "perfection"? This is why I ask for simple, direct, unequivocal, answers when certain questions are important, because this gobbledygook, is anything but clear.
"So, we'll see if you answer any of mine."
Well, since I've already answered many of yours, I guess you have your answer. In some cases, I answered exactly the same way you answer.
You claim you've answered the single question I'd asked, yet strangely can't provide a reference of where this alleged answer can be found,
Nonetheless, I answered it. At least twice, now. More, in other places, but at least twice today, just in the last hour. Perhaps you have missed it in your big ol' blogger pile o' comments?
There is at least one of my comments that's missing. Indeed, I see you citing my answer about Perfection but I don't see the comment itself. Perhaps not all my comments have been published?
What your somewhat incoherent parenthetical statement seems to be saying is that you believe that the "mark" you speak of (but haven't defined) is "perfection". Am I correct in deciphering your vague response?
Yes, Craig. EVERY TIME that I say, "I'm guessing that the term means that we're talking about missing the mark OF PERFECTION," then that is my direct and clear answer. I don't know how to be more direct and clear. Maybe this:
MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT "missing WHAT mark" IS THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT TELL US BUT
MY GUESS IS THAT IT'S SPEAKING OF
MISSING THE MARK OF PERFECTION.
Does that help? I truly don't know how to be less vague and more clear.
So very strange.
"We are not perfect people. *"
We were getting closer to an actual answer, but then you throw out this non-sequiter. The question I asked was "How close to the "mark" do we get?", this is not an answer to that question.
(*This repeated claim that all babies are perfectly sinless and perfect, absent actual proof or even the merest hint of data beyond Dan's claims, is irrelevant and a pointless distraction.)
"BUT, being GOOD does not demand being perfect. They're two different things."
This is an excellent example of Dan asserting an unproven claim as if it was proven. It's also an example of Dan ignoring what I've said earlier to divert attention away from something.
"Do you disagree?"
With your unproven statement being objectively True, yes. Otherwise, I've addressed this elsewhere.
"If so, based upon what?"
Your inability to prove the unsupported claim you made as if it was objective Truth.
"I can answer your questions all day, just as I am doing. Your turn, friend."
You say this, yet you don't actually do what you say. You then pretend that I haven't answered many of your questions already.
I'm done for the day, I'll consider what else you've spewed and spew over night before I decide whether or not to consider my question answered and restore your privilege of commenting on this post.
Another comment that I made that is not showing up here (not sure if it's the same one where I answer your "missing the mark" question or not) is where I went through, "What if" question by "What if" question and gave direct, clear answers to each one of them. Just fyi.
Maybe you're having a blogger problem?
We were getting closer to an actual answer, but then you throw out this non-sequiter. The question I asked was "How close to the "mark" do we get?", this is not an answer to that question.
There is no answer. It's a category error. GOOD is measurable, understandable, clear. We know what Good is and means.
On the other hand, we also know what PERFECT means. But it's a different category than Good.
What could ANY possible answer be to "How good does one have to be to be perfect?" It's like asking, "HOW Mercedes Benz does a FORD need to be to be a Mercedes Benz?" It's just not going to be a Mercedes, it will always be a Ford. We will never be a perfect God, we'll always be humans, imperfect as humans are. But that doesn't mean we can't be good humans.
I don't know of a way to answer that theoretical question. It's a category error.
Now, I repeat one of my questions to you: Is it your theory that we have to be perfect like God in order to be good?
It's a reasonable question.
By the way, another comment I made was featuring a quote and a link from a Pentecostal source that speaks of the Good Fruit from Good Tree comment from Jesus. There appear to be several - or at least a couple - of missing comments.
"Nonetheless, I answered it. At least twice, now. More, in other places, but at least twice today, just in the last hour. Perhaps you have missed it in your big ol' blogger pile o' comments?"
This alone should get your commenting privileges revoked for this post. The fact that you make this claim of fact, and not only can't prove it, but that you belligerently refuse to prove it and descend into snark. I appreciate the projection though, usually too many comments is your excuse.
"There is at least one of my comments that's missing. Indeed, I see you citing my answer about Perfection but I don't see the comment itself. Perhaps not all my comments have been published?"
It appears that you literally might be genuinely stupid after this statement. Perhaps I was unclear about what suspending your commenting privileges for this thread until you answered one simple question means. Were those words too many syllables for you to understand?
I'll try to simplify.
I not put your words on blog with no answer.
"Yes, Craig. EVERY TIME that I say, "I'm guessing that the term means that we're talking about missing the mark OF PERFECTION," then that is my direct and clear answer. I don't know how to be more direct and clear. Maybe this:"
Given your track record of being less than clear, on the rare occasions when you appear to actually BE clear, it makes sense to verify. I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your position.
"Does that help? I truly don't know how to be less vague and more clear."
It's too bad it took you so long to do so.
So very strange.
"Maybe you're having a blogger problem?"
No, I'm having Dan Trabue problems.
"There is no answer. It's a category error. GOOD is measurable, understandable, clear. We know what Good is and means."
This is a whole new level of obfuscation, even for you. You've completely tried to move the goal posts.
You have finally been clear that this "mark" you frequently refer to is "perfection".
You have repeatedly claimed that "sin" is "missing the mark" (perfection).
So, the question that remains is how badly do me miss this "mark" or "perfection"?
It's not a difficult concept to understand.
For example, a standard rifle (or archery if bangy gun things scare you too much) target contains a small black circle with an X in the middle. This is the "mark" if you will. If one can place all of one's shots in this "X ring" one has successfully "hit the mark", if you will. Surrounding this "X ring" are a number, often 6 concentric rings. One can measure how far they are from the "mark" by referencing the specific ring where their shots land. These circles are printed on a rectangular sheet of paper. If one's shots land outside the circles, but still puncture the paper, that's referred to as "on the paper". Likewise, a clean miss is referred to as "off the paper".
So, if "perfection" is the "X ring", how far away from that "mark" does human sin "miss" by? To me more accurate, how far away from the "mark" or "perfection" does the most "minor" sin you can conceive of land?
"What could ANY possible answer be to "How good does one have to be to be perfect?" "
Who cares, because that's a question you simply made up, not the question I asked.
"But that doesn't mean we can't be good humans."
As long as your measure good relative to other humans, that's exactly what I said in the original post.
"Now, I repeat one of my questions to you: Is it your theory that we have to be perfect like God in order to be good?"
The answer to this question is literally in the original post, which leads me to conclude that you didn't really read the entire post and just made up what you thought it said and are responding to that straw man.
But, I'll do what you won't and graciously answer again.
If by good, you mean "good" as in "No one is good but YHWH.", then no. If you mean relatively good as compared to other humans and measured on a subjective sliding scale, then sure.
"It's a reasonable question."
It's a question.
"By the way, another comment I made was featuring a quote and a link from a Pentecostal source that speaks of the Good Fruit from Good Tree comment from Jesus. There appear to be several - or at least a couple - of missing comments."
Are you really so stupid, arrogant, illiterate that you don't understand what it means when I clearly told you that your commenting privileges were revoked on this thread until you answered a simple direct question?
I'm not sure why you're so enamored by some random quote that you've mined from some random "church". Especially given the reality that I can't believe that you agree with Pentecostal theology much, if at all, and that no one else here is going to give significant weight to some random Pentecostal quote.
However, now that you've finally answered the question and I'm back here. I'll post your bizarre quote when I get around to it.
"I'm answering them. OF COURSE, we can determine if there are good people in the world. Who is suggesting that we can't recognize - "determine" in your words - good and bad people? Are YOU suggesting that?"
Excellent job of missing the mark. Your questions demonstrate that you haven't read the original post.
I'm suggesting that the only standard we have to evaluate people's actions is to subjectively compare them against others or against some subjective internal concept of "good". So, no.
"These are empty rhetorical questions with obvious answers. Are you seriously wanting ANSWERS to these rhetorical questions that you almost certainly aren't willing to answer yourself? I can answer more of them, but it's more of the same."
Again, answer or don't, I really don't care. For quite a while you've seemed to have difficulty understanding that not doing something when you want it done, is not the same as not doing something at all. Your inability to comprehend that notion that I'm asking questions either rhetorically or to get others answers is a valid exercise stuns me. I know it's hard for you, but other people can sometimes wait to listen to things before weighing in themselves.
"Period. That's the direct and clear answer to most of your questions."
They're questions, you idiot.
Your obtuse, arrogant, and belligerent attitude makes me wonder why you bother to comment at all. If you don't find the questions interesting, or find playing along worthwhile, why engage in this sort of divisive behavior? Why demand that I do things, at my blog, in ways that suit you? Why not just revel in your sycophant who'll rarely disagree with you?
"he question is based upon an unsupported and probably generally false guess - that we humans always compare ourselves to other bad people to get an idea of if we're good or not. Again, I'm sure there are some anxiety and guilt-ridden people who may do this but I have no data to guess it's normative. It's certainly not proven."
Excellent response. Of course it's based on an an unsupported and probably false premise as well, so there's that.
"A higher standard of what?"
Anything.
"Being Good?"
Sure, what is there IS a higher standard to measure what "good" is.
"By being good, I think most humanity understands that it means just what we think it means: Being kind and helpful out of a desire to see the world a better place. That IS good, by definition and I see no data to suggest some alternate, non-standard definition of Good should be assumed."
That is "good" by your subjective, relative, "definition" and the entire response is not an actual answer to the actual question asked. It's just you riffing on your same old, unproven bullshit. Do you understand the concept of "what if"? Or does the notion of being held to a standard higher than the one you've constructed really scare you?
"I don't know many people who do this, so it's based on a faulty premise, I'd guess. You certainly haven't demonstrated that this comparison is normative."
Well, the notion that what you "don't know" determines whether or not a premise is faulty seems exceedingly arrogant, but it's not a surprise. I'll simply note that your literal "definition" is based on comparison to others who you determine are not "good". It's based on subjective, limited, standards that you've decided objectively define "good".
"Again, I see no evidence that there is a different standard and you have presented no evidence of such."
Are you so bereft of wit and intelligence that you can't deal with an open ended hypothetical? Do you really think that you being able to "see evidence" of something determines it's viability? An interesting combination of hubris, and an incredibly limited mindset.
"Again, I think that IS the normal understanding of Good. Doing nothing and simply "not being bad" is not what most people consider being good. You've presented no data to make me guess your premise is correct."
Again, you're asserting that what you "think" is somehow the validating factor for the entire world.
"Still unsure. We can see (the Bible and reason tell us) good people. We can recognize good behavior, the good fruit that is borne by good trees. It's there to be seen. Period."
So still no answer for the question asked, just more hubris and lack of imagination.
"Are you saying we can't?"
No, I'm saying that (as you just demonstrated) the measure of "good" you are using is based on comparison to others and your subjective hunches, not to an objective standard. While your "missing the mark" assertion, suggests (if not demands) an objective "mark" to be missed. What you've done is to consistently divert from this objective "mark" you claim we "miss" to asserting that your subjective, relative, "definition" of "good" is magically universal. Which, of course, misses the mark and avoids the question.
How far from the "mark" of "perfection" are the people and deeds you insist are "good"? If "good" is still a missing of THE "mark", then by what standard (other than a relative, subjective one) is it "good"?
"I know of few people who think this way and you've presented no data to make me think otherwise."
Given how often you've offered what you "think" or what you've "seen" or your subjective anecdotal experience as the bar to determine what is a valid "premise", I suspect that you may be unaware of something.
"Is that a good enough start?"
As you've literally said nothing of consequence, beyond asserting yourself as some sort of authority over what's valid, it's mostly a pile of bullshit obfuscation. But if it makes you feel good, that's what's important.
"I can do this all day, answer empty rhetorical questions with generally obvious answers. I wonder if either of you all will answer the reasonable and deeper questions that I'm asking."
Again with the empty claims, and lies.
"That's not what I asked. I asked DO YOU KNOW GOOD PEOPLE?"
Interesting, you don't answer the questions I ask, but instead answer other questions yet you bitch when I follow your example.
"YES, good is relative, but it is also observable and measurable. and I do not know that your expressed theory that good is based only on comparison to others. GOOD has a definition, you know this."
The problem you have is that "observable and measurable" are meaningless terms in the absence of an objective standard to measure against. I do know that Jesus tells us that "no one is good except YHWH", therefore there would seem to be a disconnect between "YHWH good" and "Dan good". But, as you do note, good (not YHWH good) is relative. Which has been my point all along, I'm glad you finally decided to agree with me.
"Where am I mistaken?"
In assuming that your subjective, relative, definition of "good" is the standard for the entire world, let alone the standard for YHWH.
"Do you know good people as good is normally understood?"
Again, based on a subjective, relative, standard of "good" I do. But, if "perfection" is the "mark" and "good" is not "perfect", then (by your own subjective standard) "good" is "missing the mark". Which seems to create a problem is offering "good" as some sort of important measure.
If Dan "good" is still "missing the mark" of YHWH "good" (perfection) by some unknown amount, why put so much faith in people being "good" as some sort of goal?
"Do you know people who are genuinely kind and helpful and do helpful kind acts simply out of love for humanity, creation, the world?"
I have absolutely zero way to know what the motivation behind people's actions is, therefore ( as a normal human) I have no means to accurately answer your question.
"How sad if you can't easily answer that with a resounding, YES."
It's not sad at all. It's observing the reality I can observe, acknowledging that there is much that I cannot observe, and refusing to jump to conclusions about that which is unobservable and unknowable.
Obviously, i know some people that are "good" if measured on a continuum or graded on a curve, but that's it.
"No. We determine good by recognizing Good when we see it. We can recognize "good fruit" and know that they come from "good trees." That is something humans can do."
Got you, "good" is determined by the subjective observations of others without knowledge of motivation, and based on individual concepts of what "good" might be.
So, if "good" is as you describe it above, and "perfection" is the "mark" is not what you call "good" still "missing the mark"?
"Do you disagree?"
In general, if you are going to make a statement that purports to be fact without proving, offering objective evidence, or offering anything but your subjective anecdotal experience, I'll likely disagree with your unproven claim. So, in the future you can stop asking this idiotic question.
"And the metaphor there is that "good fruit" is good behavior from good people. IF people behave in good ways - they have kind, compassionate hearts that result in taking kind, helpful, loving actions - THEN they are good people. According to Jesus."
Interesting, so was Jesus lying or mistaken when He said that "no one was good but YHWH", or when He told a metaphorical story?
"Do you disagree?"
See above.
"Further, Jesus nor God have ever insisted that we need to be perfect to be good."
Really?
"Do you disagree?"
See above.
This thread is a clinic in Dan engaging in all sorts of obfuscation and almost a bait and switch.
Elsewhere he's argued that "sin" is "missing the mark", and he's defined the "mark" as perfection. So the question seems to be if Dan "good" is still "missing the mark" (sin) then what does that get us? Is Dan "good" enough for salvation? Is Dan "good" enough for anything other than self esteem?
It's the conflation of "YHWH good" and Dan "good", where the disconnect seems to lie. But according to the little bit Dan has been clear about, his version of "good" still "misses the mark", we just don't know how much it misses by or whether near "misses" are count as hitting the "mark" in Dan's world.
If a person who we can see as Good (and truly, it's NOT NOT NOT about "comparatively good" as you can't seem to understand) who observably does good, kind, loving things from a good, kind, loving heart (ie, THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE, as the bible speaks about) is helping out a poor person to find a home and adopting a child who is orphaned and in hundreds of ways lives a good life being a good person... if they sometimes get angry at their child and snaps at them in a less-than-loving way, they have missed the mark of perfection.
With me so far?
And then, they go on to apologize and continue to otherwise be the good person that they are observably are - with the regular "missing the mark of perfection..." they are still a good person.
Do you have any data to say otherwise?
They are a good person who is not a perfect person.
BUT, not being a perfect person does not make one NOT a good person.
With me still? If so, do you have ANY data to say otherwise?
In other words and as I've been saying, of course, there are good people in the world. We can tell by their good hearts and good lives, AS THE BIBLE SAYS and as reason and common sense dictate.
That's just the reality.
My question to you is, still, do you have ANY data to contradict what we can see with our own eyes... that there ARE good people in the world? Even if they are imperfect, they are still good people.
Are you disagreeing with THAT observable reality?
so was Jesus lying or mistaken when He said that "no one was good but YHWH", or when He told a metaphorical story?
Or he was speaking metaphorically. Because of course, he was. Because as you sort of seem to kind of want to hint at vaguely that maybe you a little bit agree, kind of... there ARE good people in the world. Given the reality of good people, then clearly, Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
Jesus was no more lying or wrong than the biblical author who spoke of the four corners of the earth was wrong - he was just speaking metaphorically and it happens. There's nothing wrong with understanding a text that is clearly metaphorical as metaphorical.
Now, if you want to TRY to make the case that Jesus was saying there are LITERALLY no good people in the world, feel free. But you've got to deal with the problem of the reality of good people.
Further question: One thing you seem to try to hedge your bets on is, "WELLLL... we don't know their motivations for doing what is clearly good things... MAYBE they have evil intentions!!" (or whatever your exact words were). By all means, try to prove that you, your wife, your friends and other people you know and love who are good/do good things out of a good heart, don't REALLY mean it and they're actually bad and just pretending to be good.
I know my good friends well enough to know that they are actually good, if imperfect, people. And good people CAN be imperfect and still good.
Do you disagree?
Craig gracelessly said about the "good" people he knows:
i know some people that are "good" if measured on a continuum or graded on a curve, but that's it.
Interesting. Well, that's rather sad for you (or maybe your people you know). For ME, I know people who are genuinely good people, NOT "graded on a curve" or "on a continuum" presumably between them and Hitler. No, the people I know who are good are simply good people, doing kind, helpful, supportive things, with good motivations.
I guess you're saying that you are entirely unwilling to say that your loved ones, your wife, your parents, your closest friends... that NONE of them are simply good people... just that they're "good" but only as compared to Hitler? Or only if they're "graded on a curve..."
Geez. What a friend.
I would be willing to bet that this is not true. I would be willing to bet that you have loved ones who are genuinely good people. Period, no backhanded "sort of good, comparatively, graded on a curve..." but actually good.
But again, quite sad for you and yours if not.
Trying to make sure I haven't missed any of your questions:
How far from the "mark" of "perfection" are the people and deeds you insist are "good"? If "good" is still a missing of THE "mark", then by what standard (other than a relative, subjective one) is it "good"?
Sin, biblically speaking, is missing the mark of perfection. That's what the word means (I'm assuming on the perfection part, as I haven't seen a definitive Greek answer). But Good, biblically speaking, is just Good. Good as in doing kind, helpful, supportive, loving things from a kind, good, loving heart. You know, Good. (Seriously, brother, this is not a hard question or point to understand).
One can sometimes "miss the mark of perfection" and STILL be Good. Are you guessing that this is not the case?
So, "how far of missing the mark/of being imperfect" can one be and still be good? Well, we can be imperfect and yet, still be loving, kind and good. So, let's say, 75 - Q(squared). You can miss the mark by 75 - Q(squared). How's that for a nonsensical answer to an irrational question?
We can be IMPERFECT - we can MISS the mark of imperfection - EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES... TEN TIMES A DAY! (let's say) - and STILL, we can be good people with good hearts doing good things.
Do you disagree? Based upon what?
"With me so far?"
Yes, you've convinced yourself that your subjective, personal, concept of "good" based on some of the actions you observe in others, with no knowledge of motivation, compared to either others actions or some subjective ideal in your mind is somehow objective.
"Do you have any data to say otherwise?"
I fail to see the relevance of you asking me is I have "data" to support your subjective, anecdotal, observation. I also fail to see how "missing the mark", by some margin which you won't communicate, regardless of the specific action can be "good" when measured against the "mark".
"With me still? If so, do you have ANY data to say otherwise?"
Yes, I'm following your hypothetical, theoretical, subjective, relative, hunch. Unfortunately, as you've provide no "data" I fail to see the point of this exercise. No I have no data about things you make up.
"That's just the reality."
Who needs "data" or definitions or standards when you have the power to decree what "reality" is. Of course, you still continue to ignore the distinction between Dan "good" and YHWH "good".
"My question to you is, still, do you have ANY data to contradict what we can see with our own eyes... that there ARE good people in the world? Even if they are imperfect, they are still good people."
No, I have no "data" regarding your subjective, relative, hunch based on your incomplete anecdotal claims. Nor should I. You keep asking me for "data" for claims I haven't made, and I can't help but wonder why.
"Are you disagreeing with THAT observable reality?"
I'm disagreeing with your ability to project your subjective, relative, incomplete, biased, observations based on a small sample size into some sort of objective reality.
I've also addressed this in the original post.
"Or he was speaking metaphorically. Because of course, he was."
An entirely new logical fallacy, the Magical Metaphorical. It's where Dan simply declares something to be "metaphorical" based on his ability to magically divine the real, hidden, Truth in Jesus' words.
"Because as you sort of seem to kind of want to hint at vaguely that maybe you a little bit agree, kind of... there ARE good people in the world. Given the reality of good people, then clearly, Jesus was speaking metaphorically."
Tell me that you haven't read, paid attention, or understood what I've written without telling me.
"Jesus was no more lying or wrong than the biblical author who spoke of the four corners of the earth was wrong - he was just speaking metaphorically and it happens. There's nothing wrong with understanding a text that is clearly metaphorical as metaphorical."
Well, as long as you make this proclamation often enough, maybe it'll magically become True.
"Now, if you want to TRY to make the case that Jesus was saying there are LITERALLY no good people in the world, feel free. But you've got to deal with the problem of the reality of good people."
No, I don't. I've already dealt with this.
"Further question: One thing you seem to try to hedge your bets on is, "WELLLL... we don't know their motivations for doing what is clearly good things... MAYBE they have evil intentions!!" (or whatever your exact words were). By all means, try to prove that you, your wife, your friends and other people you know and love who are good/do good things out of a good heart, don't REALLY mean it and they're actually bad and just pretending to be good."
Dan, I'm not "hedging my bets" at all. I'm merely pointing out something that is so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it.
Motivation is literally not something that can be seen, heard, measured, observed, or otherwise quantified. It's literally entirely in the mind and heart of each individual. The reality is that, unless you can perfectly read minds, you simply don't know motivation. You can choose to believe what people say, but again, you have no actual knowledge of how accurate they are choosing to be.
"I know my good friends well enough to know that they are actually good, if imperfect, people. And good people CAN be imperfect and still good."
Wow, this ability to perfectly know people's motivations is very impressive.
"Interesting. Well, that's rather sad for you (or maybe your people you know). For ME, I know people who are genuinely good people, NOT "graded on a curve" or "on a continuum" presumably between them and Hitler. No, the people I know who are good are simply good people, doing kind, helpful, supportive things, with good motivations."
That's quite a claim, given your complete and total lack of anything even resembling objective proof or "data". Please show me "data" that absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably, proves someone's motivation. I'll wait.
"I guess you're saying..."
Anytime you start a sentence with this, I realize that you're wrong and that I don't have to deal with that idiocy.
"I would be willing to bet that this is not true...."
See above.
"Sin, biblically speaking, is missing the mark of perfection. That's what the word means (I'm assuming on the perfection part, as I haven't seen a definitive Greek answer). But Good, biblically speaking, is just Good."
So, please explain how you've just decided that YHWH is not "perfect", but merely "just Good"? By all means, provide the "data" that proves this. Or is this one of those instances where you simply capitalize an word to pretend like it somehow means something else with the "G"?
"Good as in doing kind, helpful, supportive, loving things from a kind, good, loving heart. You know, Good. (Seriously, brother, this is not a hard question or point to understand)."
So, you are now claiming that this alleged "mark" or "perfection" is NOT based in YHWH's character? That He's NOT perfect, sinless, and holy?
"One can sometimes "miss the mark of perfection" and STILL be Good. Are you guessing that this is not the case?"
I don't know, it's your unsupported theory, why not provide the "data" that proves it? FYI, there's a hint in the original post that resolves this conundrum.
"So, "how far of missing the mark/of being imperfect" can one be and still be good? Well, we can be imperfect and yet, still be loving, kind and good. So, let's say, 75 - Q(squared). You can miss the mark by 75 - Q(squared). How's that for a nonsensical answer to an irrational question?"
It's a stupid, ridiculous, non answer to a perfectly reasonable question.
Let's posit a scale of 1-100, with 100 being perfect. If somehow you manage to achieve a score of 98, would that be "good"? Would it be "good" enough to gain a prize of infinite worth? Is it "missing the mark?
"We can be IMPERFECT - we can MISS the mark of imperfection - EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES... TEN TIMES A DAY! (let's say) - and STILL, we can be good people with good hearts doing good things."
So you say, but don't offer objective "data" to prove.
"Do you disagree? Based upon what?"
Yes. Based on my inability to simply trust and accept your unproven hunches with no objective "data" to prove them, because you say so.
Craig...
please explain how you've just decided that YHWH is not "perfect", but merely "just Good"?
...you are now claiming that this alleged "mark" or "perfection" is NOT based in YHWH's character? That He's NOT perfect, sinless, and holy?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I have not said that God is not perfect, sinless or holy.
I'm guessing that you read my words, "Good, biblically speaking, us just Good," and thinking I said God is just Good.
Those capital letters must REALLY (sorry, really) throw you off! Or explain what you mean.
you are now claiming that this alleged "mark" or "perfection" is NOT based in YHWH's character?
Well, the text never says that. I'm just going on what the text says and the literal Greek meaning of the word.
Dan
"I have no idea what you're talking about. I have not said that God is not perfect, sinless or holy."
So, are you saying that YHWH is none of those things?
"I'm guessing that you read my words, "Good, biblically speaking, us just Good," and thinking I said God is just Good."
Yes, I read the exact words you wrote, applied the common meanings and usage to them and went from there.
"Those capital letters must REALLY (sorry, really) throw you off! Or explain what you mean."
It's not so much that they throw me off, as they literally make no sense from an English language grammar sense. The only reason to capitalize "good" is when it is the first word in a sentence. So, when you randomly capitalize words with no rhyme or reason, it raises questions about your intent. Do you intend to convey some specialness to this particular use of the word "Good"? Are you unable to control your typing and random;y hit shift? Are you too lazy to proof your comments? There's literally no clue, so I do what normal people do and ask. Shockingly, you don't answer, you default to snarkily blaming me for your choices.
"Well, the text never says that. I'm just going on what the text says and the literal Greek meaning of the word."
That literally, in the literal sense, makes no sense. If the term "perfection" is not (as you note) part of the "literal Greek meaning", then you can't be going only on what the (ignoring context and meta narrative) "says (texts don't "say" anything as you so frequently note), because you acknowledge that "perfection" is something you assume. Given that, why not try again and make sense this time. You clearly pulled "perfection" from somewhere, and if it's not from the nature of YHWH, then where?
Dan...
"One can sometimes "miss the mark of perfection" and STILL be Good. Are you guessing that this is not the case?"
Craig...
i don't know, it's your unsupported theory, why not provide the "data" that proves it? FYI, there's a hint in the original post that resolves this conundrum.
The definition of the word, the common understanding of the concept of a good person.
If Jesus had said to you, "you can know good trees by their good fruit..." would you respond to Jesus, "yeah... but how do we know what you mean by, Good? We can't make any sense unless you provide an objective measure of what you mean by Good..."?
Words have meaning and rational adults operate in the real world based on understanding words and meaning.
There are people, who by standard understanding of, Good, are good people.
Do you have anything of substance on which you would disagree?
Dan
Dan
Wow! Dan tries hard to insist he hasn't said what his words tell us he's said! Amazing!
Dan hasn't actually refuted anything I've said, so I'll take a pass as well. But where he said this:
"BUT, being GOOD does not demand being perfect. They're two different things."
This is the question at hand when we get down to it. When Jesus said there is no one good but God, it clearly defines "good" as "perfection". I have no problem with that. We're to be holy because God is holy. That's a high bar, too. We're to be good because God is good. As I said, it matters not to how we use the word "good" to communicate a sentiment regarding others. But as is clearly the case, and as Dan is affirming while trying to insist he's not, to call my mother "good" is to compare her to other people. It's the reality of the thing. The reality is only God is good. Jesus wouldn't have said so if it wasn't true. Dan worries that it means his wife isn't a good person should he acknowledge what Jesus said without Dan-level equivocation. But Dan will equivocate and pretend it was some metaphorical statement of Christ's, and he does so without basis of any kind.
Dan pretends the truth Jesus spoke was "metaphorical" as the use of "four corners of the earth". But no one believe the earth has four corners, and it's unlikely no one did when that phrase was used, because they knew what it meant and the message had nothing to do with the physical shape of the earth. While some people might be confused by a metaphor, the way Japanese people learning English are confused by idioms like "killing two birds with one stone", most people aren't. Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically when He said there's no one good but God. Dan just doesn't like the implications of that truth.
And again, in order to regard someone as "good", there must be some criteria by which the word can rightly be applied. That criteria is subjective and changes according to culture. I made the reference to "Goodfellas" as the very title speaks to the point Dan pretends isn't true. Who is referenced as "good fellows"? Mobsters who commit all manner of criminal acts. Dan rejects that because he doesn't regard those people as good at all! Well, neither do I, but that's not relevant and it doesn't negate the point.
Do I know "good" people? As Craig rightly says, yes I do, but that's relative to other people. Those I consider "good people" hard working, generally kind to others, etc., but they not only aren't perfect, but they're bad enough in some ways to render the term "good" meaningless. Even a cretin like Dan wouldn't consider them bad people in general, but that's only because they check enough boxed under the "good" column to satisfy Dan's criteria. Whether or not they satisfy God's is a whole 'nuther story, but it's the only story which matters in the end.
So the people I regard as "good", I insist are far better people than Dan. Poor Dan. In light of that he's a real scumbag. But then, he does promote, enable, celebrate and defend sexual perversion and he does defend the practice of infanticide under the deceitful claim of "women's health", so he's a liar, too (but we knew that).
And as to this "miss the mark" crap, the problem is that it's a binary situation. One either hits the mark or one misses it. There's no "just barely" which is referenced at all with this "definition" of "sin". It's not relevant that those I regard as "good people" are still missing the mark, even if not as badly as Adolf Hitler. That's not at all how "sin" works. But it's how Dan needs it to work in order to feel satisfied that he and those he boringly references, as if we have the means to verify or the desire to do so because it wouldn't matter, are "good" and therefore just the type of people God will welcome into His Eternal Presence, as if "good deeds" is what gets it done.
Keep in mind...this is a guy who claims to have seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture.
"Do you disagree?"
Clearly.
"If so, based upon what?"
On the words of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, and various passages of Scripture which confound your childish kumbaya understanding.
"The definition of the word, the common understanding of the concept of a good person."
Your insistence on asserting these sorts of concepts that you believe to be unassailable because you believe that the simply are and require no further explanation.
"If Jesus had said to you, "you can know good trees by their good fruit..." would you respond to Jesus, "yeah... but how do we know what you mean by, Good?"
1. Quite possibly I would. If Jesus took the time to specifically tall me something, I think I'd be curious enough to die in to details and make sure I understand.
2. You're not Jesus.
3. I went to the store the other day and bought a tomato. I went through many tomatoes that were all "good" (They were edible, they weren't poisonous, they were the correct color, etc), yet I found one that was "good" enough to purchase. That one "good" tomato wasn't nearly as good as the one my wife bought at the farmers market the next morning. Good is relative to something, always.
"We can't make any sense unless you provide an objective measure of what you mean by Good..."?"
This is one more example of you adding a ? to a declarative sentence so you can up your question count and bitch that I don't answer your questions.
Given that, the problem with your "question" is that it shows that you haven't read or comprehended anything I've said.
We can and do make relative judgements about what or who is "good" all the time, see my tomato example. Yet, if "good" as it applies to sin and :missing the mark" is "perfection", then you start to have problems. If, as you posit, "sin" is "missing the mark", and the "mark" is "perfection", then how can sin be "good"? If our best efforts at being or doing "good" "miss the mark" of "perfection", by what standard are those efforts objectively "good"?
"There are people, who by standard understanding of, Good, are good people."
Based on a relative measure of "good", as I've said sine my original post. How does one measure "good" without comparing it to something? I know you'll default to "the definition", blah, blah, blah, but when the "definition" was promulgated "good" had to be defined relative to something.
"Do you have anything of substance on which you would disagree?"
I do, but you will likely not read, understand, or respond to it.
Art,
Good points. Dan is hiding behind the "definition" without acknowledging that the "definition" would necessarily include some basis to delineate "good" from "not good". You can't just magically declare that "good" exists without any relation to "not good". "Good/bad/evil/etc" exist on a continuum. Because someone might be "good", while someone else is "better" (more good). Does it not diminish someone who is the epitome of "good" to describe them with the same term ("good") as someone who is just barely "good"?
It's interesting that Mother Theresa, someone who almost everyone not Muslim would agree was one of the most "good" people who have lived in the last 150 years, wasn't particularly impressed by how "good" she was.
What Dan seems to have missed in my original post and subsequent comments is the notion that YHWH provided a way to take people who "miss the mark" through sin, and to let the record show that the "mark" was hit and that their sins have been erased. Or that what is impossible to men, is possible with YHWH.
It seems as though Dan is stuck in a place where being "good" relies on human effort. That a baby, born 100% free from sin, can (if they work hard enough) live a sinless life (or at least stay sinless for a number of years). That YHWH isn't going to punish anyone at all for a few (thousand/million?) "minor" sins.
But isn't the point that through the power and love of YHWH that everyone has the possibility of standing before Him positionally free from sin?
Indeed! Through all of Dan's blathering about "missing the mark" and what "good" means or is, he must necessarily reject the reason why Jesus Christ was born into this world...must reject why mankind needed a Messiah...must hold that salvation is works based while carrying on about "Grace" (whatever that means!). The fact is, and it's the overarching theme of Scripture from start to finish, one one is "good" enough and can't be without Christ.
So, Dan...call your pervert friends "good" because they do nice things and act nicely towards each other and those they favor...call them "good" because they're not as bad as Hitler or bin Laden. They aren't good because only God is good.
I will add this as well: if Christ was truly speaking metaphorically...and Dan's laughable low level "reason" can't seem to back up that suggestion...on what basis would he suggest that Christ would use a false metaphor to teach truth? Jesus use of any metaphor would still be something true. For example, "her laughter is infectious" is a metaphor because there's no true infection. The truth is in the effect on others of hearing her laugh. "The world is a stage" is a metaphor which suggests a reality about life. Both of these are examples of truths, using descriptions that literally are false. Her laughter isn't a contagious disease and the world is not a gigantic theater. "Only God is good" doesn't even equate to or parallel these examples of metaphor.
Thus, Dan can only suggest that Jesus didn't mean it literally that only God is good. That means Jesus is lying. Or perhaps it's hyperbole, but that gets us back to relativity, which fails because His statement makes an unequivocal delineation between God and the rest of us. It still makes God the ultimate representation of "good" or even the only example of what "good" is or looks like. I'd go so far as to say...because it seems quite true...that God is "good" without even trying. He just is. Mankind requires constant striving without failure, for every failure resets one's state of "goodness" to square one, and "good" must again be established to stifle or erase the "bad".
Dan bases "good" on the things people do or desire to do. They must continue in these endeavors, apparently, because once they stop "doing good" or "desiring to do good" can they actually still be regarded as good? How so?
Dan's arguments are absurd and childish. "NO! I'M NOT A BAD BOY!"
Excellent point regarding the metaphor red herring, it's his usual dodge when he can't deal with the plain meaning of a text. Announce that it's metaphor, but be unable to explain what the metaphor actually means and how it fits with the text.
I think part of Dan's problem is that he starts from the position that we are born sinless and inherently "good", rather than us being born with a sin nature and the "no one is good". Given that starting point, it's easy to see how one would move from there into being convinced that "good" is measured only by what we do, and that "missing the mark" or "perfection" is not that big of a deal.
Nowhere in scripture do I see his "good but not perfect" theory. That there's "the mark", but then there's "good enough".
Craig...
I think part of Dan's problem is that he starts from the position that we are born sinless and inherently "good", rather than us being born with a sin nature and the "no one is good".
1. As a point of established, observable fact, not one newborn infant comes out of the womb sinning. That's just reality and to say otherwise is just false.
2. Now, I get that some people have this human theory that babies and all humans have a "sin nature," but it's just that, a human theory, and entirely unsupported.
3. For the 200th (estimate) time, I have not said all humans are inherently good.
4. Rather, I've been quite clear that all humans are imperfect, fallible (with the caveat that this can't really apply to at least newborns... because, based on what?)
Craig...
... rather than us being born with a sin nature and the "no one is good". Given that starting point, it's easy to see how one would move from
Now, given YOUR human predisposition to theorize that all of humanity is inherently sinful as a starting point, it's easy to to see how one could theorize that humanity is deserving of eternal torture.
But no, its not easy to understand. That unsupported theory is just deeply strange and irrational and harmful.
Dan
Craig...
I think part of Dan's problem is that he starts from the position that we are born sinless and inherently "good", rather than us being born with a sin nature
As another point of fact, I started out believing the human theory that I was taught (as if it were a fact) that humanity is totally corrupt and not good and evil, even. That's what I believed for the full first half of my life.
It was ultimately the complete and total lack of support for that theory... along with observably good people... that changed my mind. The more I've listened to your collective unsupported theories, the more y'all have pushed me away from what I was indoctrinated to believe.
Fyi.
Dan
Announce that it's metaphor, but be unable to explain what the metaphor actually means and how it fits with the text.
ahem. Does it matter how many times I do this, will you keep claiming I haven't presented my case for what the metaphor means?
In Romans 3, we find Paul saying:
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
Paul is speaking to the Judaizers who took some pride in the fact that they were the "chosen ones" and Paul is bringing THEM specifically down to a more humble starting place. And when Paul is doing that, he is citing (I believe) Psalms...
Psalm 14:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?
Here we find the text literally is speaking of fools and "evildoers..." those who oppress and cause harm. THEY are the ones among whom, "None do good."
Again, the literal point NOT being that there are ZERO good people in the world, only that we should be humble and side with the beloved community, the poor and marginalized, and stand strong against the oppressors and "evil ones..."
Another passage...
Romans 12:
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
In this text, there is no metaphor. It's stating quite clearly what is fairly rationally obvious: By transforming our mine focused on grace and the will of God and doing the good, we CAN discern what is good and acceptable and perfect. Perfect, there, may be more aspirational, but it's pretty clear what the text means and that is supported by just reality - using our mind to focus on good and helpful, we CAN learn better how to be good and helpful.
And then, Jesus' words in Mark 10:
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked...
This is the CONTEXT of the passage in question, fyi. And THEN, the rich young man approached Jesus, calling him "good teacher"...
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone
So here again, as in the other passages, we find the notion of "There is no one good" juxtaposed against the legalism and arrogance of the oppressors, the rich and the Pharisees. The point being made is NOT that there are zero good people in the world, but that these oppressors need to be humble, accepted their fallen nature which is common to ALL humanity, and then they can enter the realm of God. They had to be thusly rebuked precisely because of their arrogance and position which served to keep the poor and oppressed down.
Now, you may not accept my interpretation of these sorts of texts (and I could literally go on and on..., as I have in the past), but you can't say I haven't explained the figurative nature of the term. Also, I may have sometimes used "metaphorical" instead of figurative, but that's what I'm getting at... that it's not LITERAL, but figurative, metaphorical, hyperbole... being the point.
Nowhere in scripture do I see his "good but not perfect" theory.
The open your eyes and learn to look past your indoctrination into your specific religious traditions.
We literally see in the Bible people referred to as good. THAT is biblical (as I've pointed out).
We literally see in the real world, good people. THAT is reality, as the word is generally understood.
And at the same time, we can see biblically and in reality that people are imperfect.
HOW, then, is the notion that there are good people and at the same time that no one is perfect not present in the Bible?
I'm guessing maybe you want to brush aside the notion of good people as presented regularly in the pages of the bible as figurative, not literal? But then, why? Simply to align with your human tradition that there are NO GOOD PEOPLE ANYWHERE - AND THAT INCLUDES NEWBORNS! ...?
It's not a rationally strong reason.
We know why he does this crap...to allow for all that he knows is forbidden, while fearing he'll lose the relationships of all who indulge in them. I've known lots of people who I hope to meet in Heaven (if I'd even care about anyone but God should I not fail to be regarded by Him as welcome). I worry when someone I know dies and I'm not certain they were saved, praying that their relationship and devotion to God surpassed my woeful failure to be what I know I should be (Paul spoke of this, too, in one of his Epistles). Dan clearly hopes he and those he regards as "good" have done enough good to overcome their evil....as if that's what matters.
1.If you're not going to respond to what I actually said, why bother?
2. Just as you "100% sin free" hunch is unsupported.
3. If you say so. You literally just said that all human babies are born 100% sin free, are you saying that those humans are not "good"? It's fascinating that you'll get all pissy about what you "aren't saying" then don't clarify what you are saying.
4. So, you are now saying that being "imperfect" equates to "sin".
"Now, given YOUR human predisposition to theorize that all of humanity is inherently sinful as a starting point, it's easy to to see how one could theorize that humanity is deserving of eternal torture."
Well, if you're going to simply make shit up and attribute it to me, why should I bother with your bullshit?
Dan continues to insist that him spouting unproven, anecdotal, stories is proof of anything.
"Does it matter how many times I do this, will you keep claiming I haven't presented my case for what the metaphor means?"
Since you've done it zero times, if I'm wrong point me to a link to where you've done this before, the claim that you haven't presented a case is so far True.
Now we'll see if your case makes sense.
"Paul is speaking to the Judaizers who took some pride in the fact that they were the "chosen ones" and Paul is bringing THEM specifically down to a more humble starting place. And when Paul is doing that, he is citing (I believe) Psalms..."
Well, not a good start. Quoting Paul as if his later teachings have some sort of priority over Jesus prior teachings, seems like a weak beginning, especially as the text you quote has no relationship to what Jesus was talking about. But it's starting out convoluted as expected.
"Here we find the text literally is speaking of fools and "evildoers..." those who oppress and cause harm. THEY are the ones among whom, "None do good.""
This is quite the example of cherry picking something, engaging in eisegesis, and pretending like your hunch must be True with no proof beyond you making an assertion.
"Again, the literal point NOT being that there are ZERO good people in the world, only that we should be humble and side with the beloved community, the poor and marginalized, and stand strong against the oppressors and "evil ones...""
There's nothing in the text about "oppressors", so that's a strike against your exegesis.
"The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,"
This phrase "children of man" seems to be pretty much inclusive of all of the "children of man", not some random subset.
"to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God."
Again, "any" doesn't appear to point to a subset. It refers to the above referenced "children of man". You'd have to provide some evidence, beyond you making an assertion, that "any" of the "children of man" represents something other than "any" of the "children of man".
"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one."
I guess words like "all", "none", and "not one" secretly mean something else. Again, you simply asserting something isn't "proof". It's not even evidence.
Nice proof text of Romans 12. Without taking the time to look right now, I suspect that the context contradicts your eisegesis. But you citing Paul to demonstrate that Jesus' was wrong or speaking in metaphor is amusing.
Well, I can say that you haven't conclusively, unambiguously, and definitively "proved" anything. You've offered a fanciful, eisegesis driven, hodgepodge of proof texts which don't directly relate to the text you are esiegeting, and simply made unproven assertions as if that is somehow convincing.
"The open your eyes and learn to look past your indoctrination into your specific religious traditions."
Another example of Dan demanding that others do what he refuses to do.
"We literally see in the Bible people referred to as good. THAT is biblical (as I've pointed out)."
Yes, we do. Yet my original post addresses this and you haven't demonstrated that the original post and follow up comments are objectively wrong.
"We literally see in the real world, good people. THAT is reality, as the word is generally understood."
Again, I've addressed this. I fail to see how you repeating this somehow proves anything.
"HOW, then, is the notion that there are good people and at the same time that no one is perfect not present in the Bible?"
You linking two unrelated Biblical concepts, doesn't prove that your "imperfect equals good" hunch accurately summarizes the Biblical teaching on the matter, nor does it address the many instances where your human hunch is contradicted.
"I'm guessing maybe you want to brush aside the notion of good people as presented regularly in the pages of the bible as figurative, not literal?"
Again, when you start with "I'm guessing..." I can know that you are wrong before you even finish the sentence.
"But then, why? Simply to align with your human tradition that there are NO GOOD PEOPLE ANYWHERE - AND THAT INCLUDES NEWBORNS! ...?"
Since your initial "guessing" is wrong, it stands to reason that the fruit of your "guesting" will also be wrong.
"It's not a rationally strong reason."
So, in your tiny little mind, you've concluded that it IS "rational" for you to "guess" wrongly about what I think, attribute your wrong "guess" to me as if your "guess" represents reality, then conclude that your analysis of your wrong "guess" is an indication of my "rationally strong reason"? How is a position you made up out of thin air, attributed to me with no reason to do so, and one that is false, related to my rationality at all?
Art,
Nothing Dan has ever said has convinced me that he sees in humans an ability to be "good" enough to enter the Kingdom of YHWH.
I see nothing in the context of Romans 3 or 12 that definitively demonstrates Dan's claims about those passages.
Craig...
You literally just said that all human babies are born 100% sin free, are you saying that those humans are not "good"?
Wow. It seems strange to need to say this, but...
I, Dan Trabue, am 100% willing to make the unreserved and unambiguous that EVERY baby born is 100% good.
Every baby born has ZERO acts of "sin" or wrongdoing on their record.
Are you seriously saying you disagree with this?
If so, do you recognize how irrational and unsupported that is?
Craig...
You linking two unrelated Biblical concepts, doesn't prove that your "imperfect equals good" hunch
Unfortunately for you, I have never espoused an "imperfect equals good" hunch. You read and fail to understand.
I've been abundantly clear (now for the 201st ? time...) that people are imperfect and Imperfect means that they are imperfect. Period.
AND in addition to that reality, we see that there are observably good people who are, nonetheless, imperfect AND YET, still good. Observably.
And there are imperfect people who are not generally good, as well.
But I haven't stated that "imperfect equals good."
Understand now?
Craig:
I see nothing in the context of Romans 3 or 12 that definitively demonstrates Dan's claims about those passages.
I get it. You disagree with my interpretation. Huh! Go figure.
And you know what? I disagree with YOUR PERSONAL human interpretations, as well. I think you all are collectively demonstrating a shallow level of reading comprehension no doubt influenced by your religious tradition's indoctrination of you... just as a guess.
But you know what I'm not saying? That you haven't presented your case for taking a few verses out of context and trying to force a literal meaning into words that are clearly figurative.
In other words, that you disagree with my reasoning and conclusion does not mean I have not presented my case.
you've concluded that it IS "rational" for you to "guess" wrongly about what I think
By all means, make yourself clear. I THINK you think that babies are NOT born good and sinless (ie, without having any sin actions) because you presume that they have a mythological "sin nature" that you can't prove, but it's the theory you hold. Is that NOT your position?
Make yourself clear.
In what specific way is a newborn NOT good and beautiful and glorious?
"I, Dan Trabue, am 100% willing to make the unreserved and unambiguous that EVERY baby born is 100% good."
Congratulations, you've finally made a definitive, unequivocal claim about something. Unfortunately, you making the claim does not constitute you proving that your claim is accurate.
"Every baby born has ZERO acts of "sin" or wrongdoing on their record."
Congratulations, you just restated the essence of the unproven claim above.
"Are you seriously saying you disagree with this?"
I'm saying that you've made an unproven claim and, as such, I see no reason to uncritically accept your claim.
I'm also saying that scripture leads me to a different conclusion.
"If so, do you recognize how irrational and unsupported that is?"
Yes, I recognize how irrational and unsupported your assumption that your unproven above claim represents objective reality is.
No, my disagreeing with your unproven claim based on what I see in scripture is neither irrational nor unsupported.
"Unfortunately for you, I have never espoused an "imperfect equals good" hunch. You read and fail to understand."
As you're so obtuse an imprecise in your claims, I'm forced to summarize what your claims appear to be. You claim that all humans are "imperfect" and that some humans are "good", are you saying that these imperfect humans are not good? Are you saying that only some people, based on some unknown standard, are both "imperfect" and "good"? Are you saying categorically that "imperfect" does not equal "good" and that "imperfect" people are not or cannot be considered good? If not, what are you saying?
"Understand now?"
Not really. Since the "mark" is "perfection", and by definition "imperfect" "misses the mark", by what standard are "imperfect" people "good"?
"I get it. You disagree with my interpretation. Huh! Go figure."
Well, since your "interpretation" consisted of you taking a small part of those two passages out of context, and eisegeting them with no actual details of how you imposed your views on the text and added words and concepts that aren't in the text, of course I disagree with your eisegesis. Given the total lack of substance, there's really nothing to agree with anyway, just you making unsupported claims about what the text really means.
"And you know what? I disagree with YOUR PERSONAL human interpretations, as well. I think you all are collectively demonstrating a shallow level of reading comprehension no doubt influenced by your religious tradition's indoctrination of you... just as a guess."
Interesting, given that I really made no interpretation of the texts at all. But hey if you want to disagree with something you conjured up in your imagination, you go right ahead.
"In other words, that you disagree with my reasoning and conclusion does not mean I have not presented my case."
If by "case" you mean that you've strung together a couple of cherry picked proof texts and eisegeted some crap into the texts that isn't there. Then sure, you've made a "case" completely lacking in substance, proof, or in line with the context. Congratulations, you've thrown nonsense against the wall and call it a "case".
"By all means, make yourself clear. I THINK you think that babies are NOT born good and sinless (ie, without having any sin actions) because you presume that they have a mythological "sin nature" that you can't prove, but it's the theory you hold. Is that NOT your position?"
I see what you've done there, you've moved the goal posts regarding your faulty guesses about what i think. I am convinced that scripture clearly teaches in multiple places that humans are born with a nature that inevitably leads to sin. That we inherit that nature as a part of being fallen humans. Again, given your complete lack of support for your hunch, it's hilarious that you act as if there is zero Biblical support for the default, common, orthodox, Christian teaching. But OK, I'm sure that everyone else is wrong and you're right simply because you assert something.
"In what specific way is a newborn NOT good and beautiful and glorious?
Again with the goal post move. You asserted 100% free from sin. This new "beautiful and glorious" crap is off target.
But hey, you support politicians that want laws that allow the "beautiful and glorious", "100% sin free" baby to be able to be aborted the throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for no reason other than convenience.
At what point in gestation does the baby acquire it's "beautiful and glorious", "100% sin free" attributes?
If by "case" you mean that you've strung together a couple of cherry picked proof texts and eisegeted some crap into the texts that isn't there. Then sure, you've made a "case" completely lacking in substance
TO YOU. But to me, it's an extremely strong case. On the other hand, YOUR collective defense of "sinful babies" and people not being "good" is ENTIRELY unsupported by you all in any meaningful sense.
In other words (again), I GET that you all are looking to some verses to make your case and you have your reasoning, I just disagree with it because so much of it is detached from reality in the first place and is harmful and promotes an irrational and unjust notion (that humans deserve to be tortured for an eternity - or however you want to describe your hellfire and brimstone theories). It's an AWFUL and irrational set of human opinions you all hold, on the face of it.
BUT, I'm not saying you have not presented your reasoning, such as it is. You've presented your reasoning and I find it wanting and I have presented my reasoning to you all and you find it wanting. What hasn't happened is that I haven't made my case.
See the distinction?
It's almost like if you all disagree with my reasoning, you don't think it exists, even when clearly, observably, it does.
Craig:
I am convinced that scripture clearly teaches in multiple places that humans are born with a nature that inevitably leads to sin. That we inherit that nature as a part of being fallen humans. Again, given your complete lack of support for your hunch, it's hilarious that you act as if there is zero Biblical support
I GET that you are convinced of this by your reading of biblical texts. I used to be, too. But no longer. The way you all ignore important, core questions relevant to the theory you're suggesting has pushed me further and further away from any support of those human traditions that conservatives hold on theoretical "sin natures" and unjust eternal punishments.
I HAVE given support, but apparently, you can't see it.
Briefly, again, my support for some of these ideas:
1. Newborns of course do not come out sinning. Period. It's an irrational claim IF anyone wants to make it.
2. There is no substantive data to support this human theory of a "sin nature." It's a conjecture that has evolved and been developed over centuries by humans and the more I listen to them, the less support I find. Indeed, other than pointing to a verse and saying, "look, here's a verse that I'm taking sort of literally and therefore, I think that is support for this theory of a 'sin nature.'" That's not meaningful support.
3. Pointing to the complete and total absence of any substantive support for this theory IS supporting my hunch. You all are the ones making the "out there" speculative and unsupported claim of this theoretical "sin nature," but you can't find it in a lab, you can't prove it with data, you can't observe it under a microscope... you have no way of proving this theory beyond saying, "Here are some words that I think support that idea." But that's a subjective and unsupported human opinion, NOT substantive data. When someone is making an outlier claim with no proof or data to support it, the onus is on them to provide proof.
Just as with the person who claims there are rainbow unicorns on the dark side of the moon... ALL a rational person has to say is, correctly, "THERE IS NO DATA to support that claim..." if the person making the outlier claim wants to support that irrational claim, the onus is on them.
4. The claim that I make is the more observable, rational (and still biblical) claim that humans are imperfect. Given the chance to age into reasoning adults, we will make errors, mistakes. We will fall short of perfection precisely because we are imperfect.
But there's no one I know who is proving that this imperfection is equivalent to a theoretical "sin nature," much less one that we "inherited" from a literal "Adam" whose "sin" was "passed down to all humanity" in our all having a "sin nature." That's a mythic story that is great, understood in context. But to try to establish a scientific fact out of a mythic "sin nature" is just not support.
As to "zero biblical support..." this is the problem you all continue to have. You freely acknowledge that there are figurative words and ideas communicated in the Bible from the various human authors who passed them down, AND you (probably) freely admit that you have no authoritative rubric for deciding which words are figurative and which are literal AND you have no authoritative, objective data that says your personal human conclusions about how to interpret various texts are authoritatively what GOD thinks... and yet, you want to pretend that this is some kind of significant proof?
It's a subjective human opinion, one of many possible human interpretations. Naught else.
Craig:
You claim that all humans are "imperfect" and that some humans are "good", are you saying that these imperfect humans are not good?
I'm saying that we can see with our eyes and observations that there are clearly some very good people in the world, even though they are imperfect. I am saying therefore, that YES, some of the imperfect people in the world are good.
Do you disagree? Why is that hard to understand?
Are you saying that only some people, based on some unknown standard, are both "imperfect" and "good"?
YES. You can tell by the way that I've repeatedly said, "YES, people can be both imperfect AND good, because of course they can. We can see that with our eyes."
As to an imperfect standards... we have NO OBJECTIVE standards when it comes to morality and ethics. YOU do not have an objective standard. In the Bible, Jesus recognized that we imperfect humans had no objective standard for understanding all of morality. NONETHELESS, Jesus told us imperfect humans that we CAN recognize good trees based upon their good fruit... which is a metaphor for recognizing good people based on their good actions from a pure heart.
Do you recognize that our Lord, Jesus, thought we were capable of recognizing good people even though we are imperfect and have no objective way to prove it?
Look, again, definitionally, GOOD has a meaning as it relates to human morality. We can recognize that of course, there are good people who sincerely want to help others simply because it's the right thing to do and they act upon that regularly.
Help me out and make yourself clear: Are you suggesting that you can't recognize good people based upon their character and actions? And I'm not talking about on some theoretical sliding scale, just recognizing the obvious. Can you not see that?
Are you saying categorically that "imperfect" does not equal "good" and that "imperfect" people are not or cannot be considered good?
NO.
Good God, have mercy!
If not, what are you saying?
That all of humanity is imperfect
AND that many humans are quite good, in spite of their imperfection.
AND that both things are observable.
AND that both ideas are biblical.
This is so deeply strange. What words am I using that you're finding difficult to understand?
It's almost as if your upbringing has so indoctrinated you into having opinions about the notion of "imperfect" and "good" that you are unable to understand a completely straightforward and reasonable case in a discussion involving those words.
Are you suggesting that, to you, being imperfect is equivalent to being "bad" or "depraved" or "evil" or having a "rebellious heart..."?
I'm really trying, friend.
Again with the goal post move. You asserted 100% free from sin. This new "beautiful and glorious" crap is off target.
In my thinking, they are all the same thing. This newborn human being is SINLESS, in the literal understanding of meaning they have committed no sins. They are beautiful, pure and perfect... no imperfection of failures to be perfect have yet touched their souls, hearts, minds and bodies.
Again, I recognize that you have this human theory about infants having a "sin nature," but I disagree with that unsupported human theory, much the same as I disagree with theories about a flat earth or lunar rainbow unicorns.
"TO YOU. But to me, it's an extremely strong case. On the other hand, YOUR collective defense of "sinful babies" and people not being "good" is ENTIRELY unsupported by you all in any meaningful sense."
Yes, to me. What's the point of making a case to someone other than yourself is the case isn't persuasive in the least or relies entirely on you appealing to you? The default position of historic orthodox Christianity that humans are born with a sin nature, and that scripture's referencing the concept of "no one good", are woven within the woof and warp of scripture. You proof texted multiple examples, yet you insist that they don't mean what they say without any justification for that assertion.
"In other words (again), I GET that you all are looking to some verses to make your case and you have your reasoning, I just disagree with it because so much of it is detached from reality in the first place and is harmful and promotes an irrational and unjust notion (that humans deserve to be tortured for an eternity - or however you want to describe your hellfire and brimstone theories). It's an AWFUL and irrational set of human opinions you all hold, on the face of it."
I get it, we do virtually the same thing you do, although usually with more context and respect for the plain meaning of the text, and it's wrong when we do it but right when you do.
"See the distinction?"
Yes, you have finally made a "case" that shows that you've convinced yourself that Jesus really didn't mean what he said and haven't provided anything to counter His words except your personal, subjective, biased, imperfect, human hunches. You've made a "case" that might buttress your already held convictions, but it's devoid of anything that would persuade anyone remotely skeptical of your preconceptions that you were serious about providing the proof you demand of others.
"It's almost like if you all disagree with my reasoning, you don't think it exists, even when clearly, observably, it does."
In the absence of proof that you've ever laid out the (pathetic, unproven) "case" that you've done here, I see no evidence that this isn't the first time you've done this that I've seen. But you can take refuge in your self affirming, self supporting, cocoon where it's all about you.
1. Interesting, so you admit that you're making an irrational claim and can't prove your claim. The problem is with your goal post move. You've claimed "100% free from sin" earlier, now you've artificially imposed a limit on your claim absent any proof that your theory is correct.
2. There' s no "support" for your fanciful theory of "100% sin free" babies either. At least the historic Christian view has Biblical support, even though you don't seem to put much stock in Biblical support.
3. Interesting, if tired and repetitive tactic. Demand that others provide a level of proof that you can't or won't provide, then argue that the prevailing historic Christian understanding of sin is somehow an outlier, while your new and novel hunch should be accepted with much less support and proof than the historic, orthodox position.
"THERE IS NO DATA to support that claim..."
Yes, you are correct that there is absolutely zero "data" to support your claim of "100% sin free babies". As long as you eliminate the multiple scripture references that don't support your hunch as "data" you can define away the "data" that doesn't support your unproven hunch.
"if the person making the outlier claim wants to support that irrational claim, the onus is on them."
As the person making the "outlier claim" I'd love for you to pick up the challenge you lay down for others and prove that your claim is (at a minimum) more likely to the objectively True than all others. I'll give you a low bar, because the likelihood that you'd be able to objectively prove that your claim is 100% objectively True is very low.
4.Well, that's quite the circular argument, which isn't actually proof of anything. This notion that you seem to place such a high value on observation is interesting. You seem to be saying that you are able to observe every single things that goes into the actions of another person, and that your observations are 100% perfect and untainted by your biases, prejudices, presumptions, or worldview. Quite impressive.
"But there's no one I know..."
When you make this stupid error, I know I can ignore whatever follows. When you try to make broad, sweeping, generalizations based on your limited, biased, anecdotal, incomplete, observations of a tiny sample size, I know that it's just GIGO.
"As to "zero biblical support..." this is the problem you all continue to have. "
Only in your mind. While we have significant Biblical support based on multiple explicit texts, and additional less explicit text, based on taking the plain meaning of the text at face value, you have nothing even close. You are left with cherry picking snippets of text out of context, insisting that the text does not mean what it plainly says, and eisegeting other random out of context proof texts to support your eisegesis. The difference is that, you don't like anyone that takes the text at face value, while you have zero texts that can be taken at face value to support your novel human inventions.
"It's a subjective human opinion, one of many possible human interpretations. Naught else."
So you can't provide what you demand of others, and acknowledge that there's a small statistical likelihood that your novel invention is actually objectively True.
Craig:
you have finally made a "case" that shows that you've convinced yourself that Jesus really didn't mean what he said and haven't provided anything to counter His words except your personal, subjective, biased, imperfect, human hunches. You've made a "case" that might buttress your already held convictions
1. I think Jesus meant what he said, I just think some of his words were figurative. AS YOU ALL DO. We just disagree on which ones are figurative.
2. As you've done absolutely nothing to counter reality except for your "personal, subjective, biased, imperfect, human hunches..." We are ALL looking at these words and hopefully reality around us, as well, and reaching our own conclusions. Some are just stronger conclusions than others. And no matter how much I point to observable reality and ask you to support your personal hunches, you don't even try beyond saying, "Well, there are words that I think mean X..."
These are ALL our subjective opinions. The difference is that I gladly acknowledge my subjective opinions ARE subjective opinions (except when I point to known reality, which is demonstrable and observable, as opposed to your unicorn theories).
3. Actually, I've made my case that UNDID my previous convictions because I couldn't and people like you can't - and don't even try - to deal with problems like observably good people or the justice questions or try to support your unproven theories like your "sin nature" theory. Because I couldn't and you can't address some of these big holes and serious moral problems, I had to abandon that set of human traditions and opinions. I have demonstrated that I can learn and grow and move on if a case can't be made.
Craig:
The default position of historic orthodox Christianity that humans are born with a sin nature, and that scripture's referencing the concept of "no one good", are woven within the woof and warp of scripture.
You are pretty much correct that the opinions and traditions of a large segment of "orthodox* Christianity" has been to hold to this theory of a "sin nature" (even though they can't prove it) and that they interpret some passages literally that I don't think the Bible or reason supports, taken literally.
But I'm not beholden to hold on to ancient traditions of fallible humans, am I? Why would I, IF they can't answer some reasonable questions and deal with some holes in their human theories? That many human traditions have held to something similar to what you hold to is not a compelling argument.
As you well know: Humans are imperfect and prone to getting things wrong.
* NOTE on "orthodoxy": I'm quite convinced that the word is fairly meaningless on its own. There have been many orthodoxies over the centuries of the church and no single group of Christians have the authority to proclaim THEIR set of traditions THE ONE TRUE, APPROVED-BY-GOD Orthodoxy (TM). One can appeal to numbers (as in, "MANY in traditional church circles have long believed... x"), but "the church" has believed many sometimes contradictory things over the centuries. You almost certainly wouldn't be welcome within the "orthodoxy" of Augustine's years, for instance... you would (hopefully) find many things you object to in his particular set of human interpretations.
I wonder if you can humbly acknowledge that there is no one group of human traditions that have the "authority" of God stamp upon them?
Craig:
As the person making the "outlier claim" I'd love for you to pick up the challenge you lay down for others and prove that your claim is (at a minimum) more likely to the objectively True than all others.
Well, we disagree about who is making the outlier claim, for one thing. But what I can say objectively, definitively, clearly is: THERE IS NO HARD DATA to support the claim that newborn babies have a "sin nature" or that they are "sinners" or that they are "depraved, bad or evil." We can look, watch, observe and there is not one shred of evidence to say, "LOOK! That baby just displayed a sinful nature!!" NOT ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE.
Now, I've made it quite easy for you. ALL you have to do to disprove my entire claim is provide JUST ONE bit of evidence to contradict it.
Where are you finding this "sin nature" in newborns?
And once again, saying "here's a verse that talks about babies lying from birth" is not hard evidence. It's you taking an ancient text and applying meaning to it that you can't support. It is literally an unproven, subjective opinion.
Can you acknowledge that much?
And here again, IF you can provide DATA that your personal human interpretation is objectively factually correct, ALL you have to do is provide the proof. "I really think it means that!" is not proof, though. Nor is, "Many people in my tradition have really thought it was true, too," is not objective proof.
Those balls are in your court, friend.
I had said:
But there's no one I know who is proving that this imperfection is equivalent to a theoretical "sin nature," much less one that we "inherited" from a literal "Adam" whose "sin" was "passed down to all humanity" in our all having a "sin nature."
And Craig responded:
When you make this stupid error, I know I can ignore whatever follows.
Look, here again, I'm making it easy for you. Since I was so emphatic saying "No one I know..." and "no data out there..." sorts of claims, ALL you have to do is provide ONE PERSON who is out there doing the proving. You don't even have to quote the words. Just point to a website that objectively proves these kinds of claims. Look, I've searched and TRIED to find someone to make this case (again, remembering that I used to believe this way and WANTED to believe what I'd been taught). I've found nothing. Of course, I am a finite human and could easily miss something, but keep in mind: This is a monumental claim you all are making - babies are "sinners" and have a "sin nature..." IF it were proven, the data would be easily found.
But by all means, point me to where I've missed someone even TRYING to make this case based on something more than, "Here's a verse in the bible that I REALLLLLLLY think means X..."
"Do you disagree?"
It depends on what you mean by :good". If you are claiming that people are "good" relative to other people who exist or have existed, sure. I've been saying that since the original post. If you're saying that people are "good" as YHWH is "good", then no.
"Why is that hard to understand?"
Because your entire claim seems to be based off of trying to conflate "relative goodness" with "YWHW goodness", and that some level of "relative goodness" will magically be enough for a holy, glorious, perfectly good, creator God to let us slide by.
"YES. You can tell by the way that I've repeatedly said, "YES, people can be both imperfect AND good, because of course they can. We can see that with our eyes."
That is quite the extraordinary claim about your powers of observation. Your ability to discern motives for people's behavior must be extraordinary.
"As to an imperfect standards... we have NO OBJECTIVE standards when it comes to morality and ethics."
This thread is full of firsts. For the first time you emphatically acknowledge that the only standards of "morality and ethics" are subjective. Thanks.
"YOU do not have an objective standard."
I've never said I did. What I have said is that you or I not having one is not proof that one does not exist. Above, you made a subjective claim, disguised ass an objective claim for which you have no proof.
" In the Bible, Jesus recognized that we imperfect humans had no objective standard for understanding all of morality."
Where exactly did Jesus say this explicitly? It certainly seems as though Jesus, in multiple examples (Matt 5:17 and following) sounds as if He's enunciating an objective standard for behavior. You seem to be saying that absent an objective standard for "understanding" that satisfies you individually, that there can be no objective standard for behavior. It's almost like saying that we need to be able to perfectly understand every possible reason why speeding is illegal before we have to obey the objective standard of behavior.
"NONETHELESS, Jesus told us imperfect humans that we CAN recognize good trees based upon their good fruit..."
Of course this can only be measured relative to other "trees" which produce poor or no fruit. Jesus also told us that trees that bear no fruit are to be cut down and cast into the fire. As I pointed out yesterday, and you ignored, even
"good" fruit exists on a continuum relative to other more "good" fruit. But, that's been my point since the original post, that "relative good" is a thing, but isn't the same as "YHWH good".
"which is a metaphor for recognizing good people based on their good actions"
Again, measured relative to the actions of others which (as you note) are measured on a subjective scale.
"from a pure heart."
Here's where you lose me. You have no ability to accurately measure "pure heart", it's simply you assuming that you have some ability to intuit with 100% accuracy what people's motives are and assuming that they are always "pure". With absolutely ZERO "data", let alone proof.
"Do you recognize that our Lord, Jesus, thought we were capable of recognizing good people even though we are imperfect and have no objective way to prove it?"
Answered.
"Look, again, definitionally, GOOD has a meaning as it relates to human morality. We can recognize that of course, there are good people who sincerely want to help others simply because it's the right thing to do and they act upon that regularly."
1. That you've subjectively assigned a meaning to good doesn't make your meaning True.
2. If morality, as you note, is "NOT OBJECTIVE", then your subjective meaning you've assigned isn't good for much except measuring others by your subjective criteria and comparison to others.
3. The number of unproven, un provable, assumptions in that sentence boggles the mind. That you seem to think that you asserting those things as facts, makes them True, seems pretty pathetic.
4. Since morality, as you emphatically note< is "NOT OBJECTIVE", by what standard to you objectively define "right"?
"Help me out and make yourself clear: Are you suggesting that you can't recognize good people based upon their character and actions? And I'm not talking about on some theoretical sliding scale, just recognizing the obvious. Can you not see that?"
I have. Your entire premise rests on you putting inordinate faith in your powers of observation and reason and your inability to acknowledge that you can't discern motive as reliably as you thought. Which leaves you applying your personal, subjective criteria to define "good" relative to the behavior of others and your subjective hunches.
"This is so deeply strange. What words am I using that you're finding difficult to understand?"
I understand the words, the concepts you are trying to pretend are objective is where I have problems. Oh, and I have problems blindly accepting that your powers of observation are infallible and extend to people's motives.
"t's almost as if your upbringing has so indoctrinated you into having opinions about the notion of "imperfect" and "good" that you are unable to understand a completely straightforward and reasonable case in a discussion involving those words."
It's almost as if your self centered, humanity is inherently good, focus on external works, worldview has blinded you to the fact that offering your subjective, imperfect, anecdotal, observations as proof is absurd.
"Are you suggesting that, to you, being imperfect is equivalent to being "bad" or "depraved" or "evil" or having a "rebellious heart..."?"
No.
"In my thinking, they are all the same thing. This newborn human being is SINLESS, in the literal understanding of meaning they have committed no sins. They are beautiful, pure and perfect... no imperfection of failures to be perfect have yet touched their souls, hearts, minds and bodies."
Well, that's a problem isn't it? When you substitute your "thinking" for anything else it might lead to problems.
This notion that these "newborn human being(s) is(are) SINLESS, in the literal understanding of meaning they have committed no sins. They are beautiful, pure and perfect... no imperfection of failures to be perfect have yet touched their souls, hearts, minds and bodies.", some how just decide to sin at some point seems incredibly bizarre. Are you really suggesting that there is absolutely ZERO "seed" of sin in newborns? That they have the potential, if they try really hard, to live their entire lives "sinless"? That their (future) actions are the only thing that might be sinful?
"Again, I recognize that you have this human theory about infants having a "sin nature," but I disagree with that unsupported human theory, much the same as I disagree with theories about a flat earth or lunar rainbow unicorns."
Well since your agreement is apparently the new standard to judge Truth by, I guess that's all it takes.
I do guess that your "perfect baby" hunch lacks any explanation for what could possibly cause these "perfect" humans to sin.
1. "No one is good, except YHWH alone.". OK, which words are figurative, and what meaning are those figurative words intended to convey that the plain meaning of the text fails to communicate? Are you suggesting that "No one" really means "some people"? Or that "YHWH alone" really means "YHWH and these others"? Please explain which specific words in this specific text are figurative and how they mean something other than the plain meaning of the text. Oh, and do so without referring to anything other then the quoted text.
2. Well this lacked any significant point and failed to move things along.
It's good to know that you reserve the right to define reality though.
3. More pointless driven that doesn't prove the claims you've made.
"You are pretty much correct that the opinions and traditions of a large segment of "orthodox* Christianity" has been to hold to this theory of a "sin nature" (even though they can't prove it) and that they interpret some passages literally that I don't think the Bible or reason supports, taken literally."
Thanks, it's so rare that you acknowledge that I'm correct. Strangely enough though, you don't seem to have a problem placing your subjective hunches over thousands of years of study, wisdom, and scholarship, just because "you don't think...". That's hubris, right there.
"But I'm not beholden to hold on to ancient traditions of fallible humans, am I?"
No, you're free to make up whatever fanciful bullshit ticklers your fancy. Just don't pretend like your subjective, bullshit, hunch should be taken seriously by others or is "biblical".
"Why would I, IF they can't answer some reasonable questions and deal with some holes in their human theories? That many human traditions have held to something similar to what you hold to is not a compelling argument."
Well, thanks for disqualifying your "arguments" and "case". You mistake the fact that you don't like or don't find something compelling for the thing not actually being compelling, a good answer, or good argument. Your like or dislike isn't what validates someone else's (especially experts) position.
"As you well know: Humans are imperfect and prone to getting things wrong."
You are a fine example of this premise.
"I wonder if you can humbly acknowledge that there is no one group of human traditions that have the "authority" of God stamp upon them?"
When I reference orthodoxy, I'm referring to the core beliefs that are and have been shared by the vast majority of Christians since the apostolic age. I'm not suggesting 100% agreement on every detail, but general agreement on certain core beliefs.
Why wouldn't I acknowledge that your question is based in a fanciful and entirely made up presumption about what you think I believe?
Craig:
While we have significant Biblical support based on multiple explicit texts, and additional less explicit text, based on taking the plain meaning of the text at face value, you have nothing even close.
Craig, I don't think you are understanding the problem you all have.
A. Not everyone cares about the Bible and even of those who do,
B. not everyone reads it the way you all do, with the human presumptions you all hold (inerrancy, for instance, which is not biblical or rational)
C. And given we're talking something as epically profound as whether or not humans have this mythical "sin nature" that we "inherited" literally from a literal "Adam" 6,000 years ago in the garden... given how HUGE that is, we're asking for something more than your personal collective human opinions about a few handfuls of verses in the Bible might mean, in your own opinions.
D. If someone were to quote the passage about the "Mark of Cain" and tell us that they think that's God making "black people" who were "cursed" from that time for his misdeeds, and that person insists, "But it's in the Bible and I'm telling you what it means..." that doesn't mean that anyone needs to take him seriously based on his personal interpretation. You agree with that in that case, right?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23922864
based on taking the plain meaning of the text at face value, you have nothing even close.
Pointing out the reality that we can objectively SEE and observe actually good people IS something significant. Pointing out the reality that there is no hard data to support this "sinful nature" opinion IS something significant. Just like in responding to flat earth believers or YEC believers.... we don't need to find a verse in the Bible to confirm reality. If a verse in the Bible could be taken to mean something that isn't factually correct in the real world, then good literary criticism recognizes that it's probably not wise to take a literal meaning of something that is disproven by reality. That IS significant, even if you don't think so.
And you all just ignoring how significant the "reality problem" you all have does not help make your case. Same as with the justice problem you all have. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
1. "No one is good, except YHWH alone.". OK, which words are figurative, and what meaning are those figurative words intended to convey that the plain meaning of the text fails to communicate? Are you suggesting that "No one" really means "some people"?
How many times answering this will it help for you to see or understand the point I'm making?
A. It can't mean there are NO good people, because the Bible speaks of good people, has expectations of finding good people and living lives as good people. Thus, BIBLICALLY, it can't mean literally "NO ONE is good."
B. As noted, many of these texts throughout the bible are dealing with the reality of arrogant, presumptuous oppressors, legalists and Pharisees. Many of these texts are directed towards them, even where it doesn't mention them specifically.
C. Keeping in mind that Jesus was quickly and often directly threatened by the religious legalists, so he sometimes spoke in coded, concealed language to not get in too much trouble, too quickly. "Before his time," as he said.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207&version=NIV
These are legitimate, reasonable explanations for such passages AND add to it that neither God nor the Bible are making the claim that "the Bible" should be taken 100% literally.
So, when Jesus says to the rich young man that "No one is good but God alone," I think reasonable people can conclude that he was NOT saying that there are NO good people (that would contradict other places in the Bible) but rather, it was said for this rich man's sake, for the sake of the legalists, for humility's sake and spoken hyperbolically, emphasizing God's goodness and our need for humility.
This is a legitimate and reasonable explanation for not taking it literally, even if you ultimately disagree, it's not unreasonable and I'm not ignoring it.
Now, where can YOU prove objectively that Jesus wants you, Craig, to take this literally to mean that there are literally no good people (in spite of what other passages tell us)? Or can you admit the reality that you can't prove it should be understood literally?
Humility is a great thing.
"Well, we disagree about who is making the outlier claim, for one thing."
Because there's no possible way that one random internet genius, spouting an unproven, hunch that goes against thousand of years of experts in the field could possibly be the "outlier". How arrogant and stupid can you be?
But what I can say objectively, definitively, clearly is: THERE IS NO HARD DATA to support your "babies are 100% free from sin and objectively perfect" at birth hunch either. Of course, you can offer nothing to offset the thousands of years of experts weighing in on the topic either. You just have your, lonely, little self.
"Now, I've made it quite easy for you. ALL you have to do to disprove my entire claim is provide JUST ONE bit of evidence to contradict it."
Again, demanding of others that they do what you won't.
"Where are you finding this "sin nature" in newborns?"
I've dissected many newborns... Sorry, that's almost as stupid as your "question"? Please tell me where you find this selfless perfection and 100% freedom from sin you claim?
"And once again, saying "here's a verse that talks about babies lying from birth" is not hard evidence. It's you taking an ancient text and applying meaning to it that you can't support. It is literally an unproven, subjective opinion."
1. It is evidence, that you've arbitrarily chosen to exclude certain evidence from the discussion is simply proof that your claims are weak.
2. The problem is that you have less than "a verse", you have nothing but your subjective hunches, based on your subjective "observation" based on a tiny sample size, and based on assumptions about what you can't observe.
"Can you acknowledge that much?"
See above.
"ALL you have to do is provide the proof."
Again with the double standard, you demand of other what you refuse to do yourself.
"I really think it means that!" is not proof, though. Nor is, "Many people in my tradition have really thought it was true, too," is not objective proof."
Nor is "because I see people in my friend group", nor is "because I think so", nor is "because I personally, partially observe a small sample of some people's behavior". It's like you know you have none of the things you demand of others, less than none really, so you try to make these absurd demands as a way to hide the inadequacy of your own hunches. The excluding certain types of evidence, a priroi, is never a good sign for your argument.
"Since I was so emphatic saying "No one I know..." and "no data out there..." sorts of claims,"
I pointed out the flaws with these claims, and flawed they are. You repeating them emphatically doesn't ignore the flaws. I see no reason to waste time with such an idiotic premise as yours.
Craig:
some how just decide to sin at some point seems incredibly bizarre.
And yet, it's literally true. Observably, factually.
Are you really suggesting that there is absolutely ZERO "seed" of sin in newborns?
YES.
That they have the potential, if they try really hard, to live their entire lives "sinless"?
NO. That is, they don't have the ability to live as perfect, with no mistakes.
(That is, what the Bible is literally talking about when it refers to sin... and a side note: The Bible's actual wording is much more gracious than religious conservative opinions - or the Pharisees' - when it comes to sin. Sin, in the Bible, is missing the mark. What does that mean? That THE GOAL is to hit the target, to do the right, to NOT miss... It assumes good intent on the shooter's part. It doesn't say, "Sin is for those who deliberately and with a rebellious heart decide to shoot at God rather than a target!" rather, it assumes a good faith effort and, being imperfect, not ever reaching perfection.
That's a whole different thing than what you all read into it. )
That their (future) actions are the only thing that might be sinful?
The reality is that the newborn hasn't sinned. They have not tried to rebel. They have not done one single deliberate misdeed. And for some - those with significant developmental delays or those who remain in a coma until they pass on - there is never any way one can say rationally that they are deliberately doing wrong. And so, given the reality of human imperfection, even though they start out not committing any misdeeds or missing of the mark of perfection, eventually they will.
It's why I prefer "missing the mark" or misdeeds or imperfection... they are better, more accurate and descriptive terms for the nature of human imperfection and misdeeds.
Do you believe that all humans (at least those with the capacity to engage in moral reasoning) deliberately sin, deliberately choose to say to God, "I reject you and your ways..."? Or that for most of us, our "sin" tends to be the failures of every day life... getting overly angry and speak a harsh word to someone unjustly... wishing someone would just stop talking so you can move on to something more important... that kind of thing?
And if so (or either way), do you think that these typical failures and misdeeds are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
If so, how is that just or Godly?
"Craig, I don't think you are understanding the problem you all have."
I don't think you understand what a stupid statement that is. But move the goalposts if you must.
A. Yet I'm having a discussion with people who purport to be "christian" to some degree or another, and who should share some degree of agreement about some minimal level of Biblical authority. Obviously, having this discussion with non Christians would look entirely different.
B. So. That doesn't mean that they are right. It also doesn't absolve other purported "christians" from addressing what scripture says and what the plain meaning of the text is.
C. While that may be reasonable, it still ignores the fact that you have less than a significant number of biblical texts that explicitly support the doctrine of the sinful nature of humanity. Tearing down a straw man of a caricature of the other side's "arguments", doesn't hide the fact that you have even less of an argument outside of yourself. It actually points to the weakness of your "case" because you spend more time battling straw men than making your "case". Certainly than making your case with reference to anyone or anything outside of your self and your anecdotal observations.
D. Apples/Oranges, goal post moving, Straw Man, idiocy to draw attention away from the fact that you have less than zero proof.
"Pointing out the reality that we can objectively SEE and observe actually good people IS something significant."
It might be as long as you were able to observe them 24 hours a day without them being aware of your observation, and were able to observe 100% of their motivation. But as long as it's just a measure relative to the behavior of others, it's not really that significant. "And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same."
"Pointing out the reality that there is no hard data to support this "sinful nature" opinion IS something significant."
Again, it might be significant if you choose to exclude certain types of evidence arbitrarily, and ignore the fact that the rate of sin is 100% (with the exception of Jesus). Which still isn't evidence of your fanciful hunch. But it's clear that the more time you spend repeating crap like this, means that you have nothing to support your fanciful hunch.
"And you all just ignoring how significant the "reality problem" you all have does not help make your case. Same as with the justice problem you all have. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away."
Well, you still are suffering from the straw man problem, I see.
"How many times answering this will it help for you to see or understand the point I'm making?"
I already see the point you're making. I just can't see how you justify your random, arbitrary labeling of parts of scripture "figurative" with no rhyme or reason and no alternate explanation that doesn't contradict the plain meaning of the text.
A. Well, if you say so. But that shallow, eisegesis isn't particularly convincing. I know there are hermenutic tools to harmonize the seeming contradictions, maybe check out the tools that experts use.
B. Well, that's your opinion unsupported by objective fact.
C. Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the "Jesus spoke in secret code" canard. I specifically asked you to limit yourself to explaining one simple, direct, short, passage. So far you've done everything but address that specific passage.
"such passages"
What part of limit your explanation to the one, single, short, specific, passage and what the specific alternate, "figurative" meaning was did you not understand?
No, I asked for specifics. Not appeals to authority, especially when the authority cited is so vague. Not appeals to individual, subjective "Reason". Not vague blather based on your imperfect, biased, prejudiced, subjective, unproven hunches.
"This is a legitimate and reasonable explanation for not taking it literally, even if you ultimately disagree, it's not unreasonable and I'm not ignoring it."
If subjective, unproven hunches are "legitimate", then OK. But still no specific alternate meaning. No explanation of a meaning that is in harmony with he plain text, not contradicting the plain text. Just your subjective hunches, all by their lonesome.
"Now, where can YOU prove objectively that Jesus wants you, Craig, to take this literally to mean that there are literally no good people (in spite of what other passages tell us)?"
Well, since there ARE other passages that tell us that there is "no one good" or similar, I guess we just ignore them. Well since my premise in the original post that there is "relative good" and "YHWH good" actually bridges the alleged gap pretty well, I guess I'm not the one with a problem. Well since you were unable to even attempt to do what I asked, I guess that tells me something significant.
"Or can you admit the reality that you can't prove it should be understood literally?"
I must have missed where you acknowledged that you can't prove that a figurative interpretation (especially a figurative explanation that is nonexistent) is the only possible conclusion. I guess we're back to you demanding of others what you won't do yourself.
"Humility is a great thing."
Given your lack of it, I'm curious why you'd think so.
But as long as it's just a measure relative to the behavior of others, it's not really that significant.
WHO is comparing the goodness of someone relative to another? NOT ME.
Look at the example I gave of the social worker. They had a masters degree and are highly intelligent. They could have gone into a money-making field, but they didn't. Why? Because they wanted to help out their fellow humans.
And out of the goodness of their hearts - both at work and just in the home and neighborhood - they just give to others. They help. They sympathize. They provide support. Not because they're getting anything out of it, but just to be faithful to the Beloved Community of humanity... to God's children.
That's not relative to ANY one else, it's just noting that they are objectively giving, helpful, loving people. They are objectively good people, given the common understanding of Good. WHO am I comparing them to relatively?
HOW are they not just good on the face of it, with no comparison.
Indeed, I know dozens if not hundreds of people who similar things could be said about them. They help build a barn, they help tear down a shed, they teach children at school and then volunteer with the homeless on the weekends, they adopt children - FOUR siblings, in one case - just because they need a home. Each of them is good and there is literally NO comparison. I'm not saying, "Well, that social worker is 93 good but those lesbian mothers who adopted multiple children - in addition to being teachers and nurses during the week! - are 99 good!" Such comparisons are pointless and meaningless. Each of these people I'm referencing is good in their own way, helpful, kind, giving and doing so out of just basic human decency.
WHERE is the comparison? Because it's not coming from me.
I do get that Pharisees would be in the comparison game - "I'm thankful that I'm not a sinner like THAT man..." - but I don't think that's true for all or even most people. You certainly haven't supported that suggestion, if you're trying to make that suggestion.
Also, you keep citing "strawmen." I don't think you know what that word means. Just ignoring a request for support by waving. your hands and saying "straw man" is not an answer.
And indeed, that's the kind of thing that pushed me away from conservative traditions.
"And yet, it's literally true. Observably, factually."
Absolutely, at some point these perfect, sinless, glorious, bundles of perfection just randomly start sinning, no reason for it, it just happens.
"YES."
Proof?
"NO. That is, they don't have the ability to live as perfect, with no mistakes."
Why not? What prevents these perfect, sinless, babies from staying that way? Interesting introduction of "mistakes" as the main problem of sin.
I'm not wasting time with speculation, with not even the offer of proof. You're assuming that "missing the mark" of "perfection" is automatically not intentional. When you treat assumptions as fact, you have problems.
"That's a whole different thing than what you all read into it."
When we look at the plain text and take it at it's plain meaning, we're "reading into it", while you offer some blanket "well it's figurative" with no explanation, no attempt to deal with what the plain meaning of the text is and how the mystery meaning doesn't contradict it. Got it.
"The reality is that the newborn hasn't sinned."
A claim which you have not offered "data" for (beyond your personsal, biased, imperfect, small sample size "observations")
"They have not tried to rebel. They have not done one single deliberate misdeed."
Proof? At least proof that's' not rooted in your subjective, anecdotal, imperfect, small sample size observations.
"...eventually they will."
For some mysterious, unknown, mystical reason that no one has any possible explanation for. It's just magic.
"It's why I prefer "missing the mark" or misdeeds or imperfection... they are better, more accurate and descriptive terms for the nature of human imperfection and misdeeds."
Of course you do. Although your claim that they're "more accurate" is (as are so many of your claims) gloriously unproven.
"Do you believe that all humans (at least those with the capacity to engage in moral reasoning) deliberately sin, deliberately choose to say to God, "I reject you and your ways..."?"
Yes. I believe that all humans, at points, knowingly choose to engage in behavior that they know is wrong. If you are seriously claiming that you have never knowingly chosen to sin you're simply lying.
Again, I'm not wasting time with your made up excuses to minimize sin.
And if so (or either way), do you think that these typical failures and misdeeds are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
If so, how is that just or Godly?
"WHO is comparing the goodness of someone relative to another? NOT ME."
Well, as I skim through your "examples" I note that they are all doing what you claim you're not.
"Look at the example I gave of the social worker. They had a masters degree and are highly intelligent. They could have gone into a money-making field, but they didn't. Why? Because they wanted to help out their fellow humans."
Wow, only one possible reason not to go into a "money making field". But you know what's deep withing people hearts and minds.
And out of the goodness of their hearts - both at work and just in the home and neighborhood - they just give to others. They help. They sympathize. They provide support. Not because they're getting anything out of it, but just to be faithful to the Beloved Community of humanity... to God's children.
That's not relative to ANY one else, it's just noting that they are objectively giving, helpful, loving people. They are objectively good people, given the common understanding of Good. WHO am I comparing them to relatively?
HOW are they not just good on the face of it, with no comparison.
Indeed, I know dozens if not hundreds of people who similar things could be said about them. They help build a barn, they help tear down a shed, they teach children at school and then volunteer with the homeless on the weekends, they adopt children - FOUR siblings, in one case - just because they need a home. Each of them is good and there is literally NO comparison. I'm not saying, "Well, that social worker is 93 good but those lesbian mothers who adopted multiple children - in addition to being teachers and nurses during the week! - are 99 good!" Such comparisons are pointless and meaningless. Each of these people I'm referencing is good in their own way, helpful, kind, giving and doing so out of just basic human decency.
WHERE is the comparison? Because it's not coming from me.
I do get that Pharisees would be in the comparison game - "I'm thankful that I'm not a sinner like THAT man..." - but I don't think that's true for all or even most people. You certainly haven't supported that suggestion, if you're trying to make that suggestion.
Also, you keep citing "strawmen." I don't think you know what that word means. Just ignoring a request for support by waving. your hands and saying "straw man" is not an answer.
And indeed, that's the kind of thing that pushed me away from conservative traditions.
What's interesting is that you compare a "social work" job to a "money making" job, with the implication that one is inherently good, while the other is inherently bad.
I guess pointing out that a bunch of folks up here just got or are getting convicted of the largest fraud in state history under the guise of "social work" is irrelevant.
For someone who emphatically claims that there is no (knowable) objective standard/measure/definition of what specific acts or jobs are "good" and no possible way to know what the motivation behind those acts, you are equally emphatic that you can objectively judge "good" actions and know the purity of people's intentions or motivations.
you know what's deep withing people hearts and minds...
I'm starting to wonder if it's the case that you have no close intimate friendships... the kind where you truly know the values and hearts of people enough to confidently affirm, Yes, of course this is a good person.
Do you not have those kinds of relationships?
If so, how terribly sad.
As to the rest, all I can say is this is so deeply weird.
Dan
What's interesting is that you compare a "social work" job to a "money making" job, with the implication that one is inherently good, while the other is inherently bad.
Yes. That's exactly what I said.
[Rolls eyes]
Dan
And I'm still amazed that this boy struggles with the concept of a sin nature, which is absolutely Biblical since it's spoken of more than once. This means even those beautiful and pure infants are sinners already, regardless of having chosen to indulge in sinful behaviors of any kind. This is what the boy fails to grasp...that being a sinner is why people sin at all. They aren't "good" or "perfect" or 100% without sin so long as they don't commit that first sin. If one is not already a sinner, one would never sin. There's been only One like that, and we Christians call Him "Jesus".
Being a sinner doesn't mean one doesn't strive to be good. But "good" is an absolute term, like "perfect" or "holy". One either is good or one isn't and given all of us are sinners, there is no one good. It's really a simple concept that anyone who claims to have seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture would regard as a given. Dan claims to have once believed this, but clearly he never truly did and certainly never truly understood it if he can't grasp it now.
More importantly is that our sin nature is what necessitated the Law, as it was the means to absolution, as imperfect a means as it was given it involved things of this fallen, sin-stained world for the purpose.
To call any person "good" is simply a rather short-hand way to convey a sense of the person being someone who can be trusted, relied upon, not feared, etc., but in fact they are sinners who strive to be good, who focus on being the best persons they can be based either on religious teaching or consensus opinion of the community they inhabit. But they are not "good" in the true sense of the word, because again, it's an absolute. One is either good or one is not. It's only "human tradition" to have standards of human behaviors to form a notion of what kind of person can be referred to by others of a given community as a "good" person.
What's more, in Dan's world, "good" is absolutely subjective and those like him commandeer authority to dismiss behaviors they personally don't feel are worthy of eternal punishment. Alarmingly, such behaviors run the gamut from stealing a single pencil (Dan prefers to look at the cash value of the single pencil rather than lack of respect for the property of others, as if it's meaningless), to abominations and outright murder of those who are "100% sin free, beautiful and glorious!". It's easy for Dan, as he has sovereign authority over God to determine what is or isn't sinful. This makes being "good" easy. Dan's doing the California thing and reducing thefts from felonies to misdemeanors by altering the cash value of what's stolen. Here, Dan simply makes sinful behaviors no longer sinful or worthy of their just punishments. Dan proclaims the behaviors "OK" and thus, those who perpetrate them can still claim to be good or be regarded as good by miscreants like Dan. What Dan forgets is that by calling a felony a misdemeanor, someone's still out $1000 worth of private property, and calling a sin "OK" means God's robbed of His Supreme Authority.
Craig:
someone who emphatically claims that there is no (knowable) objective standard/measure/definition of what specific acts or jobs are "good" and no possible way to know what the motivation behind those acts, you are equally emphatic that you can objectively judge "good" actions
It's not a claim - it's just reality. YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE authoritative way of measuring or deciding morality. No one does. The difference between you and I is that I'm humble enough to admit that reality and you remain vague and milquetoast and won't take a stand one way or the other.
IF you had an objective measure, you could present it. You don't precisely because you are entirely powerless to do so.
That being said, we have two options:
I. Decide that "morality is unknowable" and lean into amoral anarchy. "No one knows! No one knows!"
II. Or recognize the reality that EVEN IF we can't objectively prove morality, it's just not that hard and we can REASONABLY recognize what is moral, what is good and what is immoral and what is bad, destructive, harmful.
Jesus clearly thought so because IN THE BIBLE (if you give a damn), he is quite clear that he expects us to recognize good people by their actions. Repeatedly, Jesus and others make that clear in the pages of the Bible. And not only that, reasonable people entirely apart from any religious tradition recognize the same. It's just not that hard. Is it loving? Is it kind? Is it helpful? Think on and do THOSE things.
Same for people's "secret thoughts..." It's not impossible to recognize someone who is genuinely caring and helpful in their attitudes and minds and someone (like Trump, for instance) who is complete amoral or immoral in their mindset and it's all about them and what will help them.
It's just not that difficult.
Do you think that, since you clearly have ZERO way of objectively proving the morality of a person, that you therefore can't recognize the good trees by their fruit?
Do you reject Jesus' teachings as false (to put it the way you keep trying to put it to me, irrationally)?
"I'm starting to wonder if it's the case that you have no close intimate friendships... the kind where you truly know the values and hearts of people enough to confidently affirm, Yes, of course this is a good person."
I'm starting to wonder if you truly understand the limits of your ability to know people's motivations and your ability to magically divine things that are internal.
"Do you not have those kinds of relationships?"
Yes. What I don't have is your magical ability to know every detail of my friends innermost thoughts, feelings, and motivations. Nor do I have you magical ability to know what they do when I'm not with them.
What I've found is that those I have the closest friendships with are those who can be honest about the things that most people keep hidden. Where we can share our struggles with temptation and sin, pray for each other, and celebrate our successes.
"As to the rest, all I can say is this is so deeply weird."
Yes, your bizarre notions that you cannot prove, your personal attacks, your straw men, and the rest of your bullshit is deeply weird.
"Yes. That's exactly what I said."
Tell me you don't understand how the English language works, without telling me...
It's always good to see how predictable you are.
"It's not a claim - it's just reality. YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE authoritative way of measuring or deciding morality. No one does. The difference between you and I is that I'm humble enough to admit that reality and you remain vague and milquetoast and won't take a stand one way or the other."
Your "YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE..." is literally a claim about what I do or do not have. That you can try to obscure the first claim behind a second claim, doesn't erase the fact that these are both claims which you won't prove.
"IF you had an objective measure, you could present it. You don't precisely because you are entirely powerless to do so."
Again, with the unproven claims.
"That being said, we have two options:"
The arrogance to declare that YOU are the sole arbiter of all possible options available to the entirety of humanity would be breathtaking, if it weren't so common for you.
I. If you say so.
II. Oh look, Dan restates his premise that a subjective moral system is only one of two options, without acknowledging the reality that different societies/cultures/countries/people groups/tribes/etc will end up with a different subjective moral code than Dan's, yet one that will be equally valid to Dan's.
III. We could adopt the moral code contained in one of the various world relaigions.
IV. As you've so often claimed, we could claim that an objective moral code exists somewhere out in the ether, but that we do not have the ability to comprehend it.
"Jesus clearly thought so because IN THE BIBLE (if you give a damn), he is quite clear that he expects us to recognize good people by their actions."
You ability to take one Biblical concept, verse, phrase, or paraphrase and act as if it is the only thing that the Bible says on a topic is amazing. Your ability to build an entire theology on one verse, to the exclusion of all context (even the immediate context) would be impressive if it wasn't so troubling.
"Repeatedly, Jesus and others make that clear in the pages of the Bible. And not only that, reasonable people entirely apart from any religious tradition recognize the same. It's just not that hard. Is it loving? Is it kind? Is it helpful? Think on and do THOSE things."
I'm unaware of where the Bible teaches that "kind and helpful" are necessary aspects of being "good". The Bible does tell us a lot about love, I'm not sure that how you show love is what Jesus had in mind.
Dan still insisting that it's "not that difficult" to magically know everyone's innermost, secret, hidden thoughts and motivations.
Apparently Dan is some sort of wizard or something, with very powerful magical abilities.
"Do you think that, since you clearly have ZERO way of objectively proving the morality of a person, that you therefore can't recognize the good trees by their fruit?"
Your ability to ask a question that is virtually identical to the question you've asked multiple times, and that has been answered, is impressive. The problem is that I suspect that you truly believe that you've never asked this question before in any way shape or form and that I've never asked it.
So, for the last time. Yes, I believe that we can discern people and actions that are good relative to other people and actions and that in the absence of an objective standard for "good" a subjective comparison is our only option.
"Do you reject Jesus' teachings as false (to put it the way you keep trying to put it to me, irrationally)?"
No. I reject your eisegesis of Jesus' teachings as false, self serving, incomplete, shallow, and absurd.
Art,
Dan struggles with any Christian doctrine or concept that impinges on his desire to mold his personal faith to his liking.
I'm unaware of where the Bible teaches that "kind and helpful" are necessary aspects of being "good".
We are not limited to the Bible in understanding goodness or morality.
Also, passages like this support the notion of being kind and helpful as part of being good...
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
But even if there were no such passages, we can still rationally recognize that, yes, of course, being kind and helpful is precisely part of being good.
Are you trying to suggest that being kind and helpful is NOT part of being good??
The things y'all protest are just baffling, sometimes.
Deeply, deeply weird.
I suspect that you all have a penchant for legalism that is growing out of a tendency to fetishize the Bible.
Dan
I reject your eisegesis of Jesus' teachings as false, self serving, incomplete, shallow, and absurd.
Likewise.
Dan
Dan struggles with any Christian doctrine or concept that impinges on his desire to mold his personal faith to his liking.
...says the guy who says we can't know the hearts of fellow humans.
Of course, this is just stupidly false and shallow and obtuse.
I DO struggle with any human who insist that THEIR human traditions and opinions are, perforce, the right way to understand God. But struggling with and against human arrogance and pharisaism is precisely what Jesus, our Lord, did.
Are you suggesting I should blindly bow to the will of your particular set of human traditions even when I think you're clearly not understanding morality or biblical teachings correctly?
I'll be a slave to NO human traditions.
Dan
"We are not limited to the Bible in understanding goodness or morality."
Again with these unsupported comments, you're the one who specified that you were speaking of "Jesus' teachings", which are only found in the Bible.
"Also, passages like this support the notion of being kind and helpful as part of being good..."
Clearly you've imposed your personal hunch on the text.
"But even if there were no such passages, we can still rationally recognize that, yes, of course, being kind and helpful is precisely part of being good."
Again, you seem to have forgotten that you are the one who claimed that these concepts are from "Jesus' teachings".
"Are you trying to suggest that being kind and helpful is NOT part of being good??"
It could be, but I see no reason why it would be mandatory.
"The things y'all protest are just baffling, sometimes."
Yes, pushing back on your unsupported claims, and subjective eisegesis is strange.
"I suspect...", as usual means that you are wrong.
Dan still insisting that it's "not that difficult" to magically know everyone's innermost, secret, hidden thoughts and motivations.
No. Dan is recognizing that, just as Jesus said, we humans have the capacity for moral reasoning and to recognize good trees from their good fruit. Something you appear to agree with. I've not said we can recognize innermost thoughts (something it appears you imagine would reveal a heart of darkness, even though you can't see innermost thoughts, either...), just that we have moral discernment and can recognize good people. As Jesus noted.
Do you disagree with me and Jesus?
Dan
"Likewise"
The difference is that I'm not insisting that my positions represent "reality".
"...says the guy who says we can't know the hearts of fellow humans."
Because we literally cannot know "the hearts" of others with 100% accuracy. This may shock you, but people are not always completely honest about their motivations, and you don't have the magical ability to know people's thoughts. If you think you do, then prove it.
"I DO struggle with any human who insist that THEIR human traditions and opinions are, perforce, the right way to understand God. But struggling with and against human arrogance and pharisaism is precisely what Jesus, our Lord, did."
Strangely, you don't seem to have a problem when you do represent your personal, subjective, hunches as "reality". Since I've never done so, I'm not sure who you're talking about here, other than just your usual personal attacks and straw men.
"Are you suggesting I should blindly bow to the will of your particular set of human traditions even when I think you're clearly not understanding morality or biblical teachings correctly?"
No. I've been quite clear that I've stopped caring what foolish, mumbo jumbo, crap you choose to blindly follow.
"I'll be a slave to NO human traditions."
Strange given your slavish adherence to various left wing political and social causes. But you believe whatever you want that makes you feel special and superior.
"No. Dan is recognizing that, just as Jesus said, we humans have the capacity for moral reasoning and to recognize good trees from their good fruit."
If Dan says so. Have you just chosen to ignore the reality that this doesn't contradict anything I've said? You're the one claiming to know perfectly other people's thoughts and motivations based on incomplete observation, small sample size, and inability to read people's minds.
"Something you appear to agree with. I've not said we can recognize innermost thoughts (something it appears you imagine would reveal a heart of darkness, even though you can't see innermost thoughts, either...), just that we have moral discernment and can recognize good people. As Jesus noted."
Hey, you're the one claiming that you can recognize people's motivations based on incomplete observations, of a small sample size, of some of their visible actions. Again, this repeated point doesn't conflict with anything I've said. But if you read what I've written, you'd know that.
"Do you disagree with me and Jesus?"
I just said that I disagree with you and your unproven, unsupported, claims based on your personal, anecdotal, limited experience and eisegesis. I completely agree with Jesus, the problem is that you're not Jesus.
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Based on who's standards and definitions? Dan believes the lesbian relationship of two old ladies is an example of something "pure", "lovely", "of good report", "virtuous" and "praiseworthy", yet such a relationship is in clear and blatant rebellion to the Will of God. So in Dan-World, this passage means whatever DAN chooses to believe what is "lovely" absolutely is, even when being in total conflict with what the oft-mistaken Almighty God has taught us.
The same problem exists with Dan's citation of "know a tree by their fruits". Given how he's so often generally stated those he commonly cites are "people like me (meaning Dan)", such people he regards as "good" are more than merely "imperfect". They're as evil as Dan is regardless of how many good deeds they do.
The difference is that I'm not insisting that my positions represent "reality".
When I mention reality, I'm speaking of things w that can be seen in reality.
If I say the reality is that we can use our moral reasoning to recognize good actions and good people, I mean that's a real world fact. We CAN do so. Perfectly? No, but we can and do use our moral reasoning reasonably well, just as Jesus taught.
When I note the reality of actual good people, it's because they exist.
Now, if YOU want to claim that we CAN'T use our moral reasoning to recognize good people or if you want to say there are literally NO good people, then you can present evidence to support your claims.
In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with recognizing reality.
Dan
"When I mention reality, I'm speaking of things w that can be seen in reality."
Filtered through your biases, prejudices, predilections, political views, etc.
"If I say the reality is that we can use our moral reasoning to recognize good actions and good people, I mean that's a real world fact. We CAN do so."
Again, you can, but only relative to either the behavior of others, or your personal, subjective moral code/definition of "good". Of course, this doesn't conflict with my original point.
"Perfectly? No, but we can and do use our moral reasoning reasonably well, just as Jesus taught."
Where did Jesus specifically "teach" that we should specifically and primarily use of "moral reasoning"? Please be specific as to where he explicitly teaches this specific thing.
"When I note the reality of actual good people, it's because they exist."
Tell me you don't pay attention to what I say without telling me...
Now, if YOU want to claim that we CAN'T use our moral reasoning to recognize good people or if you want to say there are literally NO good people, then you can present evidence to support your claims."
When you ignore what I write, repeat the same crap over and over expecting me to respond each time as if I haven't already, I can only conclude that you really aren't that interested in doing anything but pressing your points without proving them.
Craig...
Where did Jesus specifically "teach" that we should specifically and primarily use of "moral reasoning"? Please be specific as to where he explicitly teaches this specific thing.
Glad to answer (again!), but are you thinking that Jesus did NOT teach the notion that we should use our God-given moral reasoning??
Here you go, for all the times you may have missed it before...
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
LIKEWISE, EVERY GOOD TREE BEARS GOOD FRUIT AND EVERY BAD TREE BEARS BAD FRUIT...
Matt 7
For starters. Clearly, Jesus is teaching that we can use our moral reasoning to reach moral discernment.
There are other passages... the law is summed up in Love God and love humans...
Jesus modeled using moral reasoning when he subverting the literal law to save the adulterous woman.
The Sabbath is for humanity, not the other way around.
Over and over, Jesus tells us, use your god-given reasoning, kiddos...
If you truly don't see this, I'll take the time to do a post about it.
And even if Jesus didn't teach us to use moral reasoning, of course, we should. Are you thinking that if Jesus didn't teach us that, then we shouldn't??
Dan
Indeed. Objective proof of our presentation of the facts is Scripture, wherein we read there is no one good but God, we are born with a sin nature, all have fallen short of the Glory of God and that our only hope is in Jesus...all of which overrides Dan's comical reasoning powers.
And again, "good" is a term describing an absolute state. One is either good or one is not, just as a woman is either pregnant or she is not. If one isn't perfectly and completely good, one isn't truly good. The best anyone can say...and what is the reality when anyone is saying so...is the one in question is better than another or better than most or closer to the absolute state of that known as "good" than others are.
Art
"And even if Jesus didn't teach us to use moral reasoning, of course, we should. Are you thinking that if Jesus didn't teach us that, then we shouldn't??"
No. I'm thinking that you couldn't demonstrate one place where Jesus specifically told people to use their "moral reasoning", and I was correct. You couldn't. You read this notion into a couple of cherry picked verses in an attempt to proof text your hunch, but nothing more.
Art,
I addressed your comment regarding good as an absolute state earlier, but it's worth revisiting.
Dan speaks of "missing the mark", which he defines as "perfection", yet fails to acknowledge that something either is perfect or it is not perfect. Anything less than perfect, does not hit the "mark".
I'd agree that good, as Jesus' refers to it regarding YHWH, is the same way. One is either good or not good.
Yet, as I explained earlier, good can also exist on a continuum when it relative. A good fruit can range from almost inedible, to sublime. Yet even the inedible fruit is good, because it won't kill you if you eat it.
What Dan seems to be doing is to appropriate the "YHWH good" when he refers to "good people", ignoring the reality that even the most good people still do bad things or do good things out of bad motivation. Perhaps his argument is the as long as someone is 50.000001% good, they can be described as a "good person".
What seems like a more accurate description would be to define the actions as good, without regard to defining people based on an external observance of some of their actions. I suspect that Adolph Hitler was "kind and helpful" to some people. Does that make him a "good person"?
As happens so often, Dan seems to want to appropriate the "YHWH good" to describe people as good without enough information to accurately make that judgement.
Am I a good person compared to others, I certainly hope so. But if my motivation is only or mostly so that others perceive me as a "good person", do my acts of being "kind and helpful" outweigh my selfish motivation for doing them?
That's all until next week. Off to the mountains.
Post a Comment