https://x.com/ingelramdecoucy/status/1941475651170730417?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Evangelical Christianity is such a dangerous religion because its followers believe their sins have been absolved, therefore, they believe they're good people. The problem with believing you're a good person is that it's easy to think anything you decide to do is automatically good because you, a good person, decided to do it. And good people do good things, right?"
Mona
"The ironic thing about this whole dumb screed is that it doesn’t actually describe the Evangelical Christian worldview at all but instead perfectly describes the Progressive Liberal mindset of her and her ilk."
"de Coucy"
As I read the tweet, I was shocked at how much it ("Good people do good things") sounded like something Dan would say. The fact that it completely misrepresents what "Evangelical Christians" tend to believe shows a significant degree of ignorance on her part.
https://x.com/catholicpat/status/1941090447092236713?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/catholicpat/status/1941090447092236713
It's a lengthy thread, and I can't copy paste the entire thing, yet it is interesting how this concept has moved from a personal note from Jefferson to law, given that it is not in any of the founding documents.
38 comments:
1. I absolutely thought of Dan when I read the initial piece. Then I read your comment expressing the same thought.
2. This "separation of church and state" is a "verse" as abused by the left as is "judge not, lest ye be judged".
"Evangelical Christianity is such a dangerous religion because its followers believe their sins have been absolved, therefore, they believe they're good people. The problem with believing you're a good person is that it's easy to think anything you decide to do is automatically good because you, a good person, decided to do it. And good people do good things, right?"
You're failing to understand the point, I fear.
I think (clearly) what this person is saying is that evangelicals too often justify their behavior because they think that they are doing the "good things" that God wants. That the things they are doing ARE good because THEY are good followers of God.
And whatever they're saying, I'm saying the opposite of what you're suggesting they're saying (and I suspect that is the point of this person). People who DO good things ARE good, by definition. Not, "I'm a follower of God therefore, the things I'm doing are 'good,' because God tells us the way to live and I'm following God's ways, therefore, those things I'm doing MUST be good, because... God."
Feel free to ask them to clarify, but now, I've made clear what I'm saying (once again). And once again, feel free to somehow try to prove me wrong that the notion of "Those who do good things because they are good to do, those people ARE good..."
It's almost biblical, you know? It's certainly rational and obvious.
But disagree if you must.
Yeah, the similarity is definitely there.
Yeah, Church and state is an abused excuse to limit the Church and Christian beliefs from the public square, which is the exact opposite of the intent.
"I think"
When you start any sentence with "I think" we know automatically that what follows will be bullshit with no proof.
That you can't even correctly summarize what I actually wrote, then argue against the straw man you've created is amusing as always.
"almost" isn't Biblical, "rational and obvious" are subjective terms, and your ability to determine those things is in question.
Dan once again believes himself possessed of the authority to dictate what "good works" are, again subordinating God's Will to his own.
Dan makes a lot of claims he can't back up.
Yet he's surprised that anyone would disagree with his subjective hunches.
By all means, help me understand.
Do you fellows think Good behavior is hard to understand?
That Good people are hard to recognize?
I see a farmer who loves the land and loves producing healthy food for people and I think, There is a good person doing good work for an important cause. In at least that part of their life, they ARE doing good work.
Do you disagree?
I see a social worker helping people find housing, or a job, out of love for humanity and justice and I think, There is a good person doing good work for an important cause. In at least that part of their life, they ARE doing good work.
Do you disagree?
I see a gay couple that love children and decide to adopt an orphaned child to provide them with a good loving home and I think, There are good people doing good work for an important cause. In at least that part of their life, they ARE doing good work.
Do you disagree?
Etc.
I don't think recognizing good behavior and good people is just all that difficult.
Do you?
I think the ones who said, you WILL recognize them by their love, had it right. You?
Craig...
"That you can't even correctly summarize what I actually wrote..."
?
Where did I summarize what you wrote incorrectly?
Help me understand.
What I was doing was clarifying MY position. (People who DO good things ARE good, by definition.) And I was politely asking if you disagree.
Marshal...
"Dan once again believes himself possessed of the authority to dictate what "good works" are, again subordinating God's Will to his own."
In your head, is it "dictating what good worksare" to say, "Hey, there's a woman who adopted two children and three dogs, who is a loving, giving teacher and who loves to teach her children at home and at school, how to garden and read... she's clearly doing good things in her loving, giving life... she is truly a good person..."?
That is, don't you think merely noting that some people are, doing good with their lives and thus, are Good is just a reasonable observation, not in any way, "dictating?"
How is merely observing actual good people, "dictating" anything?
Again with questions that have been answered multiple times.
1. Yes, "good behavior" is subjectively relatively easy to identify based on comparison to others. However, good behavior, does not automatically make a person objectively "good". It merely means that they are able to engage in specific behaviors that others subjectively believe to be "good" while publicly observable.
2. I'll note the goalpost switch from "good behavior" to "good people". This seems to be based on your unproven hunch that observably "good behavior" makes you an objectively "good person", without an objective standard to measure by.
3. AHHHHHHH, so you do acknowledge that your notion of someone doing "good work" in one observable part of their lives, might not be doing "good work" in others parts of their life. Which raises the question, what % of "good work" makes someone a "good person"? 50.1%? 75%? What?
4. Given your switching of terms "good behavior" with "good person", I'm not sure I can answer. It does raise the question of what if the farmer, in growing his crops, is using evil genetically modified seed, or dangerous fertilizer, to increase his yield to give to the poor?
5. As if repeating the same thing with slight modifications is somehow a different question.
6. See #5.
7. The problem you seem to have is conflating "good people" with "good work", and assuming that subjective "good work" leads to objectively "good people".
Now you're conflating "love", "good works" and "good people".
If one chooses a Christian perspective we see that our "good works" are like menstrual cloths or filthy rags, and that YWHW despises "good works" done for the wrong reasons.
Then you were unclear. My bad.
Yes, I disagree with your unproven assumption.
Craig...
"However, good behavior, does not automatically make a person objectively "good"."
1. I've said nothing about objectively good, merely observably good.
2. Is this claim of yours an objective fact or an unproven opinion?
Given that Jesus and others often state, "you will know good people by their good fruit..." Do you think Jesus was wrong? Or was he speaking subjectively? Or just noting a general truism, without trying to be wooden literal?
Craig...
"Which raises the question, what % of "good work" makes someone a "good person"? 50.1%? 75%? What?"
A. Must there be a line? Says who?
B. I would suggest that for most morally rational people, when we see a grandmother who
* has raised two adopted children who have nothing but love and praise for her,
* who was a loving teacher for hundreds of students over her working years
* who was an avid gardener and naturalist who promoted care for the Earth
...and ALL the dozens (hundreds? Thousands??)of basic kindnesses of many typical grandmothers...
AND who also
* was arrested as a teenager for stealing a bike
* drank alcohol to excess dozens of times in her life
* who spanked her child in anger twice as a young mother
* and gossipped dozens (hundreds?) of times in her lifetime
..etc, along with the typical foibles of many humans. No assaults, murders, rapes, etc... just typical failings... I would say most of us would say she is a good person, a saint.
Do you think it would be wrong to call such a person a good person?
Do you not know dozens or even hundreds of such people? I certainly do.
You all seem to have a much more suspicious and accusatory view of most people. Do you think that's a fair assessment?
Craig...
"so you do acknowledge that your notion of someone doing "good work" in one observable part of their lives, might not be doing "good work" in others parts of their life. "
Of course.
I've always been quite clear that there are no perfect humans, or at least no perfect adults. You know that's always been my position, right?
Given that reality, then clearly I recognize that, even amongst the best people, they still are imperfect. They have cheated on a test, cut off someone in the traffic, shouted at a child in anger, lied to their friends, etc. Of course, they have.
But then, I don't posit that only perfect people can rightly be called, Good.
Do you think that?
Do YOU theorize that there is some percentage of their life a person must have been good as compared to imperfect (or even bad) to be called Good?
Do you have no people in your life you count as Good people?
If you do, why do you consider them good?
Help me understand.
Craig...
"However, good behavior, does not automatically make a person objectively "good". "
Do you agree that many descriptor words ARE always going to be subjective?
Who is objectively beautiful? Wise? Talented? Funny? Good?
Who says it needs to be objectively proven? Is it okay to note that, Many/most people would recognize her as a wise person? ... Him as a beautiful person? ...them as very talented? He is clearly a good person?
And does it being a subjective question/descriptor mean we can't reasonably agree, She is a very good person?
Why must it be objectively provable?
Craig...
"If one chooses a Christian perspective we see that our "good works" are like menstrual cloths..."
Isn't it more correct to say, If one chooses a Christian perspective AS CONSERVATIVES ENVISION IT, we see that our "good works" are like menstrual cloths.
Do you recognize not all Christians agree with your tradition on this point?
I had asked...
"Do you fellows think Good behavior is hard to understand?
That Good people are hard to recognize?"
Craig responded...
"Yes, "good behavior" is subjectively relatively easy to identify based on comparison to others. However, good behavior, does not automatically make a person objectively "good"."
So, help me understand. Are you saying it IS easy to identify good behaviors, but that it's NOT easy to identify/recognize good people?
Craig...
"The problem you seem to have is conflating "good people" with "good work", and assuming that subjective "good work" leads to objectively "good people"."
I'm saying that we can recognize good people by their actions... by their consistently (if imperfectly) good work.
Do you disagree?
A couple of notes here.
A. Since Good (or Pretty, or Wise, or other similar descriptors) are not objective terms, perfectly identified... they're simply reasonable descriptors, it's of course reasonable to note trends, not one-off everlasting descriptors. That is, a person may I've years as a wise person and then, eventually, slide into dementia, for instance. At that point, it is still rational to say, Yes, she has lived a life as a wise woman.
Another person may have been an alcoholic as a young person and eventually had a wreck that killed an innocent family. After facing justice and making restitution, it is entirely possible for them to turn their lives around and live a life of goodness and grace, working to prevent similar disasters and saving many lives. It may be entirely reasonable to note, That person in their addiction made horrible, morally egregious decisions as a young person, and then, their life was turned around. For the last 50 years they have been a genuinely good person.
Do you think that's reasonable?
Craig:
Given your switching of terms "good behavior" with "good person", I'm not sure I can answer. It does raise the question of what if the farmer, in growing his crops, is using evil genetically modified seed, or dangerous fertilizer, to increase his yield to give to the poor?
You're pointing out one of the problems of treating "morality" and notions of goodness as an either/or, objectively provable thing. That's why I don't try to prove the unprovable "Who is objectively good?" It's an irrational question.
In my example you reference above, I was speaking of a farmer who, for love of the planet, of good work, of the importance of providing healthy food... and I was noting that he was a good person.
You've then gone and made some guesses beyond the scope of and contradictory to the notion of my question.
"A farmer who loves the land and loves producing healthy food for people" is NOT going to poison the earth or his customers. The question is contradicted by the example.
But let's suppose that the farmer, in ignorance, thought, "I'll use these fertilizers to grow more food to provide healthy food to people..." THAT farmer is still a good person in his intentions. It was just his ignorance and human failings that caused him to reach a bad decision. But being a fallible human being does not insist that one is "bad."
The grace-full person recognizes that people can and do make bad decisions in ignorance and can honor their intent. Now, when they've been educated to know "That poison is UNhealthy and dangerous to consumers," the farmer who wants to provide healthy food for people will no longer do that. The farmer motivated by greed with no compassion for humans, will be glad to sell poisoned food.
Thus, AS JESUS NOTED, by their fruit, you will know them. Not by their perfection of knowledge, but by their good ideas. The fruit in that case is NOT the poisoned or healthy food, it's the poisoned food knowingly sold to people for a quick profit and it's the healthy food provided with intention to people.
Tell me, Craig: The clumsy person who was genuinely trying to help a person on the floor to get up, when the clumsy person falls and makes the person on the floor worse, does that make the clumsy person a bad person? Or was it just an accident?
You see, when one embraces a life and Way of Grace, it's quite easy to recognize good people, wherever you are. When one embraces a way of legalism and gracelessness, it's quite easy to assume the worst in all/most people. Do you think that's a reasonable consideration?
1. Good is an objective, binary, term on it's own. "Observably good" is a term with no meaning beyond what you subjectively choose to give the term. Your standard is literally, that you "observe" acts you deem subjectively "good".
2. What claim? A quick look at history shows us that an individual that engages in a few "good" public acts isn't always objectively "good", nor always has "good" motivations.
"Do you think Jesus was wrong? Or was he speaking subjectively? Or just noting a general truism, without trying to be wooden literal?"
No, no, no.
A. I don't know. You're the one advocating that some level of "good works" makes a person "good", I'm trying to establish how you reach this conclusion.
B. So, no you can't or won't answer the question and your judgement is based on incomplete information. That you have to make up some long, bullshit, story slanted to "help" your hunch, when a simple answer would suffice, answers the question I asked.
"Do you think it would be wrong to call such a person a good person?"
1. What you "call" a person has no bearing on what they actually are.
2. As long as you acknowledge that your standard of "good" is based on a subjective scale derived from comparing one person to another, and that your judgement is based off of limited information. Sure. I suspect that your problem lies in your desire to conflate this "subjective, comparative good", to the "good" Jesus speaks of based on your unproven assumptions.
"Do you not know dozens or even hundreds of such people? I certainly do."
Yes. Who cares?
"You all seem to have a much more suspicious and accusatory view of most people. Do you think that's a fair assessment?"
No. It's a stupid "assessment" driven by bias, prejudice, and willful ignorance.
"I've always been quite clear that there are no perfect humans, or at least no perfect adults. You know that's always been my position, right?"
Interesting. You feel the need to move the goal posts from "good" to "perfect" for no reason. I've never mentioned "perfect" as a standard, which makes me wonder why you chose to make this switch. I suspect, it has to do with your unwillingness/inability to answer my question about what % of "good works" makes a person "good".
"Do you think that?"
You already know the answer to this question from the fact that I've never remotely indicated that I "think that".
"Do YOU theorize that there is some percentage of their life a person must have been good as compared to imperfect (or even bad) to be called Good?"
Here we go, the turning my question around because you can't/won't actually answer it. The problem is that YOU are the one making the claims, (The some amount of "good works" magically makes a "good person"), and it is totally appropriate to explore what your standard is for making that judgement. That you've gotten defensive, and evasive, while trying this bullshit, is revealing.
"Do you have no people in your life you count as Good people?"
How many freaking times do I have to answer this idiocy? The answer is, as always, obviously yes. Of course I have people in my life that I consider subjectively "good" based on comparing them to others. The difference is that I'm not making unproven claims about them. You are, yet you refuse to explain your standard for making such claims, and merely offer your subjective observation of a limited portion of their actions as your "proof". When that is clearly not "proof".
"If you do, why do you consider them good?"
Asked and answered. I'm done indulging your latest attempt to distract from your refusal to answer one simple question.
"Do you agree that many descriptor words ARE always going to be subjective?"
We're not talking about "many descriptor words", we're talking about one "descriptor word" and how you specifically are using it. Why the evasion and obfuscation? "Good" (without some modifier) is an objective term as you appear to be using it. You apply some (unknown) subjective criteria to determine that some "works" are "good", then extrapolate (magically) those limited "good works" into a "good person". You're making claims, it's on you to prove them. Simply announcing that you've "observed" some limited sample size of something isn't proof, it's an anecdote. Especially when it's clearly made up or embellished.
Strangely enough, one of the few people that is almost universally considered to be "good" (Mother Theresa) was quite clear that she did not consider herself as "good" as everyone else did.
"Who is objectively beautiful? Wise? Talented? Funny? Good?"
Who cares, you've only made claims about one of those things, why muddy the waters. FYI, it's pretty common knowledge that there is an objective measure of beauty, but that's irrelevant and will not be pursued. As you'll use it as one more diversionary tactic.
"Who says it needs to be objectively proven?"
When you make what is formulated as an objective claim "Dan is a good person.", then you need to prove your claim. If you want to acknowledge that your claim, as stated, is NOT an objective claim but a subjective claim based on limited observation of a small sample size of one person's actions and absolutely zero knowledge of their motivation, that's great. But as long as you make statements formulated as objective claims, you'll need to do what you demand of others and prove them.
"And does it being a subjective question/descriptor mean we can't reasonably agree, She is a very good person?"
So are you acknowledging that your claims (while stated as if they are facts) are really only subjective guesses, based on incomplete knowledge?
Or would it be better to say that someone "Appears to be a good person", or "does works that you think are subjectively good"?
"Why must it be objectively provable?"
Because you demand that claims stated as objective fact be proven for everyone else, I'm just expecting you to treat your claims the same way you treat others, and hold yourself to the same standards you demand of others.
"Isn't it more correct to say, If one chooses a Christian perspective AS CONSERVATIVES ENVISION IT, we see that our "good works" are like menstrual cloths."
No. Unless you have some magical interpretation of Christ's words that magically and radically contradicts the plain meaning of the text. As well as the multiple other examples of scripture recounting YHWH's statements about the relative value of "good works".
"Do you recognize not all Christians agree with your tradition on this point?"
Don't know, don't care. In the absence of some alternate explanation, that somehow magically contradicts the plain meaning of Christ's words, I see no reason to waste my time worrying about it.
"You're pointing out one of the problems of treating "morality" and notions of goodness as an either/or, objectively provable thing. That's why I don't try to prove the unprovable "Who is objectively good?" It's an irrational question."
Well, this is quite the attempt to divert things even further.
Let's stick with the basics. You are making claims that are formulated as objective claims of fact. "Dan is a good person." with no qualifiers or modifiers. You refuse or are unable to provide and basis for your claims presented as objective, and you refuse to acknowledge that your claims are subjective. That they are based on equating some number of subjectively "good works" that magically makes someone a "good person". These are your claims to prove.
"You've then gone and made some guesses beyond the scope of and contradictory to the notion of my question."
Because your "question" is intentionally crafted to compel an answer, based on an incomplete level of knowledge. Because you cannot and do not know enough from "observing" a limited sample of someone's public actions to make the claim that they are objectively "good". Given your anxiety over simply acknowledging that your claim "Dan is a good person." is a subjective claim based on incomplete knowledge of a small sample size of behavior you subjectively claim is "good", the problem lies with you.
"The grace-full person recognizes that people can and do make bad decisions in ignorance and can honor their intent."
This is interesting. You've introduced an entirely different element into the equation. You've gone from "good works" (observable actions judged on a subjective scale), to "intent" which cannot be measured, observed, or proven. You've literally done, exactly what you accused me of doing by introducing factors not present in the original hypothetical.
If (as you seem to be saying) intent matters, then doesn't the potential for a person doing a "good work" with a bad "intent" simply make your judgement based on observation without knowledge of "intent" even more subjective and worthless?
"Tell me, Craig: The clumsy person who was genuinely trying to help a person on the floor to get up, when the clumsy person falls and makes the person on the floor worse, does that make the clumsy person a bad person? Or was it just an accident?"
I have no idea. Who knows? It all comes back to "intent" doesn't it? Since you can't observe or measure "intent" you have no basis to make a definitive judgement.
"Do you think that's a reasonable consideration?"
Nope.
"So, help me understand. Are you saying it IS easy to identify good behaviors, but that it's NOT easy to identify/recognize good people?"
No. You can tell that this is not what I am saying because I haven't said it.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, as I've explained elsewhere.
A. Irrelevant to your original claim.
"genuinely good person."
How is "genuinely good person" not an objective claim?
"Do you think that's reasonable?"
No.
"(People who DO good things ARE good, by definition.)"
Not by definition, but by the subjective affirmation of those "things" which one might personally regard as "good", and the restriction of using those "things" as the only determinant factor for presuming to call another "good".
This is just another case of you focusing on certain behaviors as if those behaviors eliminate that which is detestable. I prefer to say something along the lines of "Dan and the lesbians he loves are hellbound reprobates who sometimes/often do things I regard as 'good'".
However, what I regard as "good" behavior is that which Scripture has demonstrated to be aligned with what is pleasing to God. Using "good" behavior as a cover for "bad" behavior is not pleasing to God. To be clear, if a dyke really cares about others, her being a dyke doesn't make her compassion any less compassionate. I'm just contemptuous of your constant beatification of lesbians as if their good works mitigate their choice to indulge in abomination. If you truly loved your lesbo grannies, you'd encourage them to reject their lesbian ways and truly live as God desires they live their lives.
Art, excellent point. People who "do good works" are simply people who spend some percentage of their time doing things that others (Dan) consider "good works". Without knowing their motivation, or how much time spent doing "not good works", it is impossible to declare them "good people".
As noted, Good (without any modifiers) is an objective term with only one alternative.
Again good point. Dan seems to have convinced himself that doing "good works" can somehow offset those things we do that are not "good". Whether through omission or commission.
It also seems like Dan has taken the word "good" from the rich young ruler story where Jesus is clearly speaking of the "good" needed to enter the Kingdom of YHWH, or experience salvation, and is attempting to act as if someone walking an old lady across a street is a level of "good" that will bring about salvation.
What I'm saying is not difficult to understand:
IF you are someone who is generally kind, caring, helpful, forgiving, gracious, loving...
IF such a person has a history of adopting children and lovingly raising them... of being a school teacher or a good farmer who loves the land or a social worker fighting for justice for the poor...
And IF that person has not shown themselves to be hateful or cause harm to others along the lines of rape, abuse, assault, theft, oppression or murder...
THEN such a person is reasonably called a Good Person.
Now you all can disagree with that notion if you want, but it's irrational to do so.
You all can GUESS that they might secretly be eating puppies, but it would be irrational to do so.
And you all can say that, "Well, maybe when they were younger, they got in a fight with their mother, therefore, they are NOT good!!!" but it would be irrational to do so.
All I'm doing is noting that it is rational to note that many people live lives of doing good and being decent and are rightly considered to be good people.
And NOT some mealy-mouthed, vaguely accusational, "Well.... they might be relatively good, as compared to Hitler and shit..." NO. I'm saying quite clearly that such people have demonstrated themselves to be good people. Period.
NOT objectively, but rationally, we are right to consider such people Good people.
Do you want to disagree with that? IF so, based upon what? Your vaguely suspicious and accusatory feelings that they might secretly be evil?
If so, you and the Accuser are welcome to think such irrational and graceless thoughts, but I won't.
The great lengths that the graceless ones go to in order to defend treating people as innately evil and corrupt (and while, at the same time, gladly voting for an overtly corrupt, inept pervert) is astounding.
Craig...
"Dan seems to have convinced himself that doing "good works" can somehow offset those things we do that are not "good"."
Of course, that's not anything I've said.
For instance, does repeatedly, knowingly voting for and defending an overt hedonist, pervert, fascist wannabe offset years of helping people find housing or jobs? Especially when this known criminal and sexual predator takes actions that cause harm to immigrants, the poor, those with disabilities?
I don't know.
What do you think?
More egregious is how selective he is in his standard for focusing on "good deeds" while minimizing sinfulness. He in no way extends that courtesy to one Donald J. Trump, and again assumes Godly authority to rationalize not doing so.
Coming from someone who displays so little grace, that is quite the pile of bullshit. That it's coupled with such blatant misrepresentation just adds to the idiocy.
"What I'm saying is not difficult to understand:"
He says right before launching into a lengthy and convoluted explanation which misses the point being made by others. That Dan's response clearly indicates a lack of familiarity or comprehension of others' positions, and a monomaniacal desire to simply hammer his unproven hunch home (again) would be amusing if not so pathetic.
"THEN such a person is reasonably called a Good Person."
Do you not read my responses, or just ignore them? I've addressed this at least once.
"Now you all can disagree with that notion if you want, but it's irrational to do so."
Let me get this straight. You are giving us permission to disagree with your subjective, unproven, hunches about people based on limited observation of a small sample size of people evaluated based on your subjective hunches about what is really "GOOD", but if we do what you give us permission to do we run afoul of your subjective hunches about what is "rational". Arrogant much?
"You all can GUESS that they might secretly be eating puppies, but it would be irrational to do so."
You can make shit up and play your idiotic games, but it would be irrational to do so. Yet you do so anyway.
"And you all can say that, "Well, maybe when they were younger, they got in a fight with their mother, therefore, they are NOT good!!!" but it would be irrational to do so."
More made up bullshit. But making up bullshit straw men, and arguing against those straw men is totally rational.
"All I'm doing is noting that it is rational to note that many people live lives of doing good and being decent and are rightly considered to be good people."
All I'm doing is noting that "doing good and being decent" are arbitrary and subjective measures based totally on comparison to others and on a limited observation of a small sample size of people. That you can choose to take that limited information, all subjective, and extrapolate that into making objective statements about the majority of humanity is certainly your choice. It's just not a rational thing to do.
"NO. I'm saying quite clearly that such people have demonstrated themselves to be good people. Period."
Yes, you have been quite clear that you believe that your limited observations and a small sample size of people (and of the totality of their actions), based on your subjective/arbitrary criteria is sufficient for you to declare them objectively "good". That you think that you can make objective judgements based on limited and subjective observation is still a mystery. That you are so incredibly arrogant in refusing to simply acknowledge that you are making subjective judgements on limited and arbitrary criteria which leads you to your personal subjective hunch which is merely a hunch, is beyond me.
"NOT objectively, but rationally, we are right to consider such people Good people."
Yet you continue to use objective terms, and make up some bullshit "rationally" category.
"Do you want to disagree with that? IF so, based upon what? Your vaguely suspicious and accusatory feelings that they might secretly be evil?"
I disagree with your unproven, subjective, hunches based on your inability to prove your claims. I disagree with your unproven, subjective hunches because they are grounded (not in measurable, objective data) but in limited observation of a limited portion of people's public lives, taken from a small sample size of people, and based on your subjective/arbitrary criteria regarding people's "good works". Further, I take seriously scripture's admonishments about the value of "good works" and that "good works" are not a basis for salvation.
"If so, you and the Accuser are welcome to think such irrational and graceless thoughts, but I won't."
Given the fact that you and "The Accuser" share a fundamental tenet of belief (Did God really say...), and that you are the second most graceless person I interact with, this is absolutely and totally unhinged and irrational.
"Of course, that's not anything I've said"
This is amusing in light of how often your comments are totally divorced from or completely misrepresent what I've said.
That you are unable to comprehend that we place your remarks here in the context of your remarks elsewhere, does not bode well for you.
That you constantly bring up this idiotic and off topic trope can only indicate that you've ignored the multiple times I've addressed the idiocy.
"THEN such a person is reasonably called a Good Person."
Only to those who unreasonably yet intentionally ignore the sinfulness of other behaviors willfully engaged by "such a person".
"Such a person" isn't, however, sinning in secret. "Such a person" is an out and proud perpetrator of what God has called "detestable". While that info is public knowledge, we can only (truly) reasonably say that "such a person" is a wicked, sinful person who does good things.
Art,
Ignoring the reality that "reasonably" and "good person" are arbitrary and subjective standards, you have a point. Although it's broader that I think you are considering.
It all goes back to Dan's refusal to specify what percentage of "not good works" offset one's "good works" to make one a "good person". We all sin, through commission or omission. If one takes the words of Jesus seriously, it is likely that we all are to be considered murders and adulterers, and none of us is "good" because only YHWH is "good".
I see two options at that point.
You have the Dan (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist) option where you grade people on their visible good works, ignore their motivation and what can't be seen, and grade on a curve. Well, Dan does more "good works" that Art, therefore Dan is a "good person" and Art isn't. The problem is sin. We all sin or make mistakes or are less than perfect or whatever your rationalization is. So the question in this sort of worldview is what "good works" can we do that will make other people see us as "good people".
Or you have Jesus. Where "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and where "only YHWH is good", and where hating someone is the equivalent of murder. Where our "good works" are as "filthy rags", and so on. Under this construct, our sins are wiped away by Jesus' sacrifice and the good we do is a result of Him showing His power through us for His glory.
I prefer the second because it removes any worry about having to perform for others, I don't do things because I want Dan to think I'm a "good person", I do things because I want to glorify YHWH (even though I do so poorly).
Do these two worldviews preclude some sort of generally acknowledged subjective continuum of "good", of course not. As long as everyone understands that it is a subjective, comparison based standard.
I can only assume that since the number of public "good works" is how Dan measures a "good person", that the absence of those public "good works" will render them a not "good person" at some point as the ratio of "good/not good" works done in public changes.
I can't help but wonder why Dan is in such desperate need of controlling which people are "good", and why his criteria are the only ones that matter.
Dan's sole concern is the beatification of those who indulge in the detestable. Dan reject's God's Will on the matter of homosexual behavior for some unknown reason (none he offers are compelling or more than insipid nonsense with no legitimate basis). Thus, my comment focused on his defense of the indefensible and how he lists as many "good works" as he can muster to convince the honest that his lesbo grannies are Heaven-bound angels of light and goodness.
My response to that crap reflects rather well, IMHO, what you just said, particular that part about "such a person" being a sinner who does good things. How else can we describe even the best of us is accuracy is a concern? It even accounts for the subjectivity in determining what is or isn't a "good work" or good behavior. What it cannot do is account for what we cannot see of "such a person", as you commonly remind. As you say, I also "judge" a person to be good by what I know of them and hope what I don't know isn't enough to alter my opinion. But doing so must account for balancing out the known good against the known bad. And of course, there are likely any number of people we might regard as "not such a good person" who without our knowledge does great things for a great many. Dan refuses to accept any story of Trump having done a "good work" without the press around to see and report it. Dan so badly needs to believe Trump is so horrible that no amount of good he's done so publicly can overcome it. Yet, a single willful act in direct rebellion against God's Will...lesbian behavior...can be discarded as insignificant by as many "good deeds" as he can muster to pad the on that side of the ledger. And that's just one obvious sin about which we know.
So for Dan, it isn't how many good things are required to mitigate the bad, it's who is the person being so judged by us. Is it the lesbo grannies? Is it Donald J. Trump? Dan has decreed that the former can do no wrong, while the latter can do no good.
Art,
There is clearly an element of Dan trying to paper over people's sin in attempt to make them "good", no question.
Yet, I think it goes deeper than simply that. (I might be opening up a can of worms here)
I think that it's two things.
1. I think it goes pack to Dan's insistence that humans are born perfect and sinless, and that most humans only rack up a few "minor sins" which aren't really a big deal.
2. I think that Dan desperately wants the "good" from "No one is good but YHWH." to be attainable through doing "good works".
It's about elevating a kind of subjective, generic, "good" to the same level as the character of YHWH, or at least much closer.
Finally, I can't help but wonder why Dan is so obsessed with actions. He bases his conclusions about people based solely on the limited amount of actions he can observe, filtered through his subjective conclusions about what actions are "good". Strangely enough, Scripture seems much more concerned with the inner than the outer. When Jesus referred to the pharisees as "whitewashed tombs" He made it clear that their exterior look nice and pretty, and that it was the interior that was the problem. He was pointing out that the very thing Dan uses as the foundation of his hunch (the visible, observable, exterior) is not the problem. Likewise when Jesus speaks of lust as being equal to adultery or anger to murder, He's focused on the internal thought process that breeds the lust or hatred, not the actual adultery or murder. When being "good" is reduced to simply keeping score based on externally observable "good works", based on an arbitrary and subjective standard, then it's just a matter of keeping score. Unfortunately Dan won't tell us what the winning score (% of "good" v. "not good") is. So his quest for "good" is ultimately futile because there's no way to really tell if you are "good" or not or even "good" enough.
Dan does it again. He chides us for daring to point out the obvious regarding the sexual perversion of his lesbo grannies (or any other "progressive" reprobate) and again shows not the least shred of grace for Trump, whose behavior is no more or less "corrupt" or "perverse" than any leftist Dan would prefer over him.
But it does point out the problem with his self-serving "reasoning". First off, setting aside the moronic accusation that we're treating anyone as innately evil and corrupt simply for pointing out being out and proud about any sinful behavior precludes any such judgement on our part in the first place. I didn't hand down the commandments of God to give to all others of the human race. I simply don't BS about which behaviors please Him or displease Him.
What's more, I don't ignore the obvious because those indulging in obvious abomination "love" each other or do good things. Conversely, I don't ignore all the good someone like Trump does and continues to do and simply focus on his past adultery.
So if we're to judge people as "good" based on their good works while ignoring their blatantly sinful behaviors, then we're still left to decide which behaviors are better than others even if we consider them all good....which behaviors result in more being good for more people. Can Dan come up with an absolutely accurate list of such good works? And if so, will his ideas of which good works are really the bestest and which are not so great be the same as mine? Likely no, because of his hatred for Trump, he'll minimize the good works of Trump and inflate as Godly the good works of his perverse old ladies.
I'll stick with my statement that both Trump and Dan's dykes are sinners who do good things and leave it at that. I prefer Trump because I'm unaware of him promoting adultery as morally equal to normal sexual relations between a man his wife, as Dan's homosexual friends promote their homosexuality as equal to the normal sexual relations between a man and his wife.
Yes, the double standard is strong with Dan. It's one of his stock tools.
The problem with his Trump example, is that NO ONE is offering Trump as a "good" moral exemplar, or a "good person". He was one of two choices, neither of which would be considered "good" by any rational person, and he happened to be the one who was more conservative. That we voted for one of two deeply personally flawed candidates is not an endorsement of anything beyond the political and policy positions articulated when weighed against the other option. It's one more goalpost move.
Noting that his "reasoning" is self serving and entirely designed to protect his preconceptions based in his biases is enough.
My point exactly, one which Dan refuses to answer. What % of "good works" makes someone a "good person". Hell, Hitler did some "good works", and we routinely hear people who grew up with vile criminals talking about what "good" people they were. There was an entire cottage industry designed around the narrative that George Floyd was a "good person", which the MSM fawningly participated in.
You nailed it, we are all sinners who sometimes do "good works", yet those "good works" are not enough for salvation, nor are they an objective measure.
Post a Comment