Are You A Good Man....

[seer]

Common sense seer. Being the source of a thing doesnt define the thing itself. To say God=good or that good=God doesn't define what is meant by either. You can, with words, define what you mean by God, but you can't use that same definition to explain what you mean by good. So, again, if you can't explain exactly what it is that you mean by the term "good" in and of itself, then your original question makes no sense and can't be answered.

Really, then how do you define a man as good? You defined yourself as good, and how do you define a society as good? Without ending up in the same circle as you accuse me of? And "common sense" is not a definition of good.

[Tassman]

Really Jim, what is good then? How do you define it? I define good as those behaviors and attitudes that line up with the teachings of Christ and the New Testament in general. I am a Christina after all.

[seer]

Oh stop, we have been through this before. Most of these different views have to do with people who reject the plain meaning of the texts - it is not about 'interpretation' but the actual denial of what the text says. Second, even if our interpretations are off, it doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer or understanding.

[Tassman]

But why let the relative cultural mores define these things for us?

Our cultural mores are grounded in our instincts to maintain a cohesive society; this is how human behaviour has evolved to ensure the survival of the family and community, so that the human species survives.

[Bill the Cat]

The mere existence of a particular interpretation does not validate its truthfulness

[Tassman]

Oh stop, we have been through this before. Most of these different views have to do with people who reject the plain meaning of the texts - it is not about 'interpretation' but the actual denial of what the text says. Second, even if our interpretations are off, it doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer or understanding.

So you're right and the Christians that disagree with you are wrong. Exactly! This is what I'm saying. I repeat: "There can be no way to resolve religious conflicts about moral issues when members of competing denominations hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive". Wars have been fought over such disagreements.

[seer]

So you're right and the Christians that disagree with you are wrong. Exactly! This is what I'm saying. I repeat: "There can be no way to resolve religious conflicts about moral issues when members of competing denominations hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive". Wars have been fought over such disagreements.

Again, nonsense. If they hold to Scripture at face value, we will be on the same page - if they deny scripture (which some do) there is no common ground. In any case, my point still stands - even if we we all get it wrong, there would still be a right moral answer.

[Tassman]

Again, nonsense. If they hold to Scripture at face value, we will be on the same page

So other Christians must do it YOUR

- if they deny scripture (which some do) there is no common ground.

Many sincere, devout Christians do not hold to the nonsensical tradition of inerrant scripture like you do. They believe scripture must be interpreted in the light of the mores of the day, including the insights of contemporary science.

In any case, my point still stands - even if we we all get it wrong, there would still be a right moral answer.

Your point assumes, without good evidence, that an absolute, unchanging morality exists. But morality does not exist outside of human culture.

[JimL]

Really, then how do you define a man as good?

I would define a good man, morally speaking, as a one who does unto others as he would have them do unto him. I know, why is that good right? And we've been over this before seer. It is morally "good" because it is in the mutual interest of human beings living together in society, ergo of humanity, to give a hoot about each others welfare. So how would I define "good," I would say that good is that which is ultimately in the best interests of both the giver and the beneficiary of an action.

You defined yourself as good, and how do you define a society as good? Without ending up in the same circle as you accuse me of? And "common sense" is not a definition of good.

No, not really, in defining myself as good, I believe I said "relatively speaking." Good isn't really something that one is, its something that one does, and the one who is best at doing the right thing, is the one we call good. But sometimes that same person does the wrong thing, what you would call a sin, so it isn't the man himself who is either good or bad, it is his actions that are either good or bad. And how I define right and wrong, or good and bad I just explained above. Your turn!

[Tassman]

I would define a good man, morally speaking, as a one who does unto others as he would have them do unto him. I know, why is that good right? And we've been over this before seer. It is morally "good" because it is in the mutual interest of human beings living together in society, ergo of humanity, to give a hoot about each others welfare. So how would I define "good," I would say that good is that which is ultimately in the best interests of both the giver and the beneficiary of an action.

[seer]

I would define a good man, morally speaking, as a one who does unto others as he would have them do unto him. I know, why is that good right? And we've been over this before seer. It is morally "good" because it is in the mutual interest of human beings living together in society, ergo of humanity, to give a hoot about each others welfare. So how would I define "good," I would say that good is that which is ultimately in the best interests of both the giver and the beneficiary of an action.

See Jim moral questions have to stop somewhere, someone has to define what is right. Either the individual, the society or God. You just expressed your opinion, (which both I and the New Testament generally agree with) but that may not be the opinion of the Maoist or Stalinist or the Hutu - where raw power and dominance is the goal. And if we take God out of the picture we are left with relative moral considerations, nothing more.

No, not really, in defining myself as good, I believe I said "relatively speaking." Good isn't really something that one is, its something that one does, and the one who is best at doing the right thing, is the one we call good. But sometimes that same person does the wrong thing, what you would call a sin, so it isn't the man himself who is either good or bad, it is his actions that are either good or bad. And how I define right and wrong, or good and bad I just explained above. Your turn!

Yes, and a 19 year old Hitler Youth in 1939 would have considered himself a very moral young man, as would his culture. If it is all relative then it is ultimately meaningless.

[seer]

But you forget the other Golden Rule that has been just as common to humanity - "He with the most gold, rules!"

[Bill the Cat]

so other christians must do it your

fundy atheism ftw!!!

[Tassman]

But you forget the other Golden Rule that has been just as common to humanity - "He with the most gold, rules!"

Doesn't seem to be working out too well for Trump.

But, cynicism aside, the "do unto others" Golden Rule has been a universal aspiration throughout human history, because it embodies the natural instincts for reciprocal altruism essential for the building more cooperative groups. And, for a social species such as us, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group greatly outweigh the benefits of individualism.

[Tassman]

See Jim moral questions have to stop somewhere, someone has to define what is right. Either the individual, the society or God. You just expressed your opinion, (which both I and the New Testament generally agree with) but that may not be the opinion of the Maoist or Stalinist or the Hutu - where raw power and dominance is the goal. And if we take God out of the picture we are left with relative moral considerations, nothing more.

Yes, and a 19 year old Hitler Youth in 1939 would have considered himself a very moral young man, as would his culture. If it is all relative then it is ultimately meaningless.

One only has to read from Hitler's own writings to realise that he believed strongly in God and that his God equalled the same God of the Christian Bible. So did the Salem witch burners and the Dominican Monks of the Inquisition and the Crusaders who sacked, raped and pillaged Christian Constantinople and the American slave traders. God generally possesses the same values of those who proclaim him. This is not surprising given that God is made in Man's image.