11 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem"...it's not all about you"
First of all, you are the one who made the error of presumption. My response was to dj2becker, who had offered up a 'feel-good' motive for believing. Sometimes, it's not all about you..
Hey! That's not what my momma told me!
Sorry. I did not read your earlier post's for context. Thanks for the clarification.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI really despise how some people on this site by selectively quoting totally distort the words of a person. Here's what I said IN FULL:
You have no foundation for this assertion. It is your belief that people are good.
What is certain is that the evidence that man is good is questionable. If man were good by nature, then the only suffering in the world would be accidental. And you could not account for it by saying it's a few bad apples.
What you don't want to admit is that tem ...[text shortened]... ave done is say I'm wrong. "Since the opposite it true" according to the word of no1marauder.
You would concede that knowing something is wrong at least makes you less likely to do it, would'nt you? If Man's basic nature was "evil" or "vile" or "depraved" knowing something was wrong would make him more likely to do it. Since the opposite is true in reality, isn't that a strong argument against your view of Man's basic nature?
Do you concede that knowing something is wrong makes people less likely to do it or not?
The rest of your post is BS. Even if Man was "good by nature" (something I have NOT claimed) there would still be suffering in the world like disease and other "Acts of God". I have no belief system that requires Man to be good by nature, but the observable evidence is there for all to see that kindness and compassion in our daily lives if far more prevalent than cruelty and violence. If you will not concede that, there's no point in discussing things with you as you, like Darfius, are denying the evidence right in front of your eyes.
I never denied "temptation" is a reality; of course it is a reality. It is also a reality that in the vast majority of cases men resist temptation and do "good". You have no explanation for that if our nature is "depraved". Desiring things proves nothing unless you can prove that Man in the majority of cases will do wrong to obtain those things. Since they do not, your vision is skewed with an unjustifable loathing of your own kind. That's a pretty sad rock to build a belief system on, Coletti.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiWow! Really? I don't think that no1 is claiming that this is a necessary truth, only that for most people, if they know of an act that it is wrong, then they are less likely to do it. Do you agree with this reading of his claim, or do you reject this as well? In short, do you think there is no connection at all between knowledge of good and evil and motivation?
Not.
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrOf course, that's exactly what I meant and I don't even know how to respond to someone who won't concede this obvious truth. It just shows the depth of loathing for the human race, along with the high degree of self-deception, that these "Christians" wallow in.
Wow! Really? I don't think that no1 is claiming that this is a necessary truth, only that for most people, if they know of an act that it is wrong, then they are less likely to do it. Do you agree with this reading of his claim, or do you reject this as well? In short, do you think there is no connection at all between knowledge of good and evil and motivation?
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course, that's exactly what I meant and I don't even know how to respond to someone who won't concede this obvious truth. It just shows the depth of loathing for the human race, along with the high degree of self-deception, that these "Christians" wallow in.
Dude, Pot, Kettle ... black ?
pc
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrErm., right and wrong change with society, a few hundred years ago it was reasonable, and more or less legal, behaviour to kill people in duals over honour. Theft can only occur in a society which has private property. There was a time when obsequiousness was admired as a virtue. What is right and wrong changes. The difficulty I have is that it's rather hard to know what you mean by a knowledge of good and evil, are you saying that it's innate or learned?
Wow! Really? I don't think that no1 is claiming that this is a necessary truth, only that for most people, if they know of an act that it is wrong, then they are less likely to do it. Do you agree with this reading of his claim, or do you reject this as well? In short, do you think there is no connection at all between knowledge of good and evil and motivation?
On the main question:
Why does life have to have a meaning?
12 Apr 05
1 edit
no1marauder: Do you concede that knowing something is wrong makes people less likely to do it or not?
Coletti: Not
Bbarr: Wow! Really? I don't think that no1 is claiming that this is a necessary truth, only that for most people, if they know of an act that it is wrong, then they are less likely to do it. Do you agree with this reading of his claim, or do you reject this as well? In short, do you think there is no connection at all between knowledge of good and evil and motivation?
no1marauder: Of course, that's exactly what I meant and I don't even know how to respond to someone who won't concede this obvious truth.
"Obvious truth"!?
To answer your question bbarr, I do not think there is a obvious connection between the knowledge of good and evil and the motives of men. But I do think this knowledge makes us culpable for the evil we do. The knowledge itself does not directly determine the choices we make, but our innate motives do. My belief is that the will of man is motivated to do evil, and the good he does is not predicated on "benevolent" intentions. Only the working of the Sprit of God transforms our intentions towards doing good. However, we are never total absent out natural inclinations as long as we breath. That is my view of the nature of man in a nutshell.
no1, I think you may be projecting something that is from your own heart. It seems, your attributing to me a "depth of loathing" and "self-deceptions" is evident of your own anger. I may be mistaken, because I can not judge your heart, but it is non-the-less disturbing. May I suggest counseling, or aroma therapy? Maybe you just need to lighten up a little.
12 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by pcaspianMaybe you could try once to make a substantive response to a post of mine? In case you haven't followed the debate (and you obviously haven't), the "Christians" on this site have expressed their opinion that human "nature" is "vile" "evil" and "depraved"; I have expressed the opinion that if human beings have a "nature" it is basically cooperative and normally geared to compassion and kindness as man is a social animal. Perhaps you'd care to respond to the actual argument rather than making some sort of ridiculous attack on me personally as is your usual modus operandi.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Of course, that's exactly what I meant and I don't even know how to respond to someone who won't concede this obvious truth. It just shows the depth of loathing for the human race, alo ...[text shortened]... ristians" wallow in.
Dude, Pot, Kettle ... black ?
pc
[/b]
12 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ColettiA personal attack on me ain't gonna work, Coletti; as I explained in a post above "self-loathing" accurately describes YOUR view of the human race, not mine. And it is a deception to ignore the obvious truth that Man usually resists whatever temptations he feels and in his daily life does far more acts of compassion and kindness than cruelty and violence. I'd say you're the one in need of an intervention as you hate what you perceive is your own nature, not me who does not.
[b/]no1marauder: Do you concede that knowing something is wrong makes people less likely to do it or not?
Coletti: Not
Bbarr: Wow! Really? I don't think that no1 is claiming that this is a necessary truth, only that for ...[text shortened]... , or aroma therapy? Maybe you just need to lighten up a little.
EDIT: Actually it was in the other thread to wit:
Self-loathing is to view oneself with "extreme disgust"; as the "Christians" on this site believe their very nature is "evil" or "vile", I believe the term is an accurate description of their beliefs.
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou should not attribute (your false understanding of) my views toward all Christians. Even if you got it right, my view is not common with all, or even the majority, of Christians.
Maybe you could try once to make a substantive response to a post of mine? In case you haven't followed the debate (and you obviously haven't), the "Christians" on this site have expressed their opinion that human "nature" is "vile" "evil" and "depraved"; I have expressed the opinion that if human beings if they have a "nature" is b ...[text shortened]... er than making some sort of ridiculous attack on me personally as is your usual modus operandi.
Do you always attack people on a class basis? It thought I was special. 🙁
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiWhy do you think I'm putting the word Christian in quotes when I'm discussing the views of you, Darfius and others on this site that Man's nature is "evil" "vile" and "depraved"? I'm referring only to the ones I am debating who style themselves "Christians" but have a pretty un-Christian view of their fellow men as far as I'm concerned.
You should not attribute (your false understanding of) my views toward all Christians. Even if you got it right, my view is not common with all, or even the majority, of Christians.
Do you always attack people on a class basis? It thought I was special. 🙁
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderJesus never told us to put on rose-colored glasses. I think Man is evil by nature, but I still love them. And the Holy Spirit reverts our nature to be in accordance to God, who is all good.
Why do you think I'm putting the word Christian in quotes when I'm discussing the views of you, Darfius and others on this site that Man's nature is "evil" "vile" and "depraved"? I'm referring only to the ones I am debating who style themselves "Christians" but have a pretty un-Christian view of their fellow men as far as I'm concerned.
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusSo, thanks to the Holy Spirit, you are "all good," and we non-believers = Hitler?
Jesus never told us to put on rose-colored glasses. I think Man is evil by nature, but I still love them. And the Holy Spirit reverts our nature to be in accordance to God, who is all good.
12 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusHow is it, then, that humankind is 'made in God's image?' If humankind is, at its essence,
Jesus never told us to put on rose-colored glasses. I think Man is evil by nature, but I still love them. And the Holy Spirit reverts our nature to be in accordance to God, who is all good.
evil, then God would have created something 'in His image' that was evil.
Why would God do this? Why would God make something that was essentially evil, only
to say, 'deny your nature and turn to Me?'
It's an absurd argument. To maintain that humankind is, at its essence, good but
imperfect (subject to occasional non-goodness), is much more consistent with the teachings
of Genesis, wherein you have the only OT examples of two people born without sin.
To say that humankind is essentially evil is to say that God created us essentially evil.
This is untenable.
Nemesio