Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can We Be Good 'Without' God?

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:02:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

The vast majority are good without a non existent god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:15:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Part 2.

Do you think religion overall (leaving out phrases like there is some good in religion) is good or bad?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:20:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:15:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Part 2.

Do you think religion overall (leaving out phrases like there is some good in religion) is good or bad?

Again 'religion' is about as meaningless as the word 'sport', there is nothing inherently 'good' or 'bad' about a sport since it doesn't mean much by itself, people might think of the most popular sports such as soccer, etc and come up with an opinion of those, but none if that means 'sport' itself is good or bad. The same applies to religion.

Religion doesn't even need to be able accepting certain beliefs, as it can just be a type of cult, nor does it need to invoke a deity. As such I have no opinion either way about 'religion' as a bare concept.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:25:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.

Of course good is relative. I've seen suggestions made that we can be good without God. So we obviously can allow about loose terminology since we use them all the time.

Do you avoid using the term good? If a child who didn't know who Hitler was asked you if Hitler was a good man or not, would you ask him what his definition of good is?

Do you think we can be sufficiently humanitarian without God?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:35:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:25:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.

Of course good is relative. I've seen suggestions made that we can be good without God. So we obviously can allow about loose terminology since we use them all the time.

Do you avoid using the term good? If a child who didn't know who Hitler was asked you if Hitler was a good man or not, would you ask him what his definition of good is?

Do you think we can be sufficiently humanitarian without God?

There are plenty of ethical systems that exist, and most of them would regard Hitler as 'not-good' at the very least, 'good' is only meaningful if you define it, and as such yes it's perfectly possible to be good without god.

In fact I would argue it's more possible, since most ethical systems root what is 'good' to conscious well-being in some form or another, and most theistic ethical systems (at least the ones I have come across) actually divorce what is 'good' directly from well-being.

Terminology is only loose if you leave it poorly defined, which is exactly what 'good' and 'morals' are.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:20:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:15:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Part 2.

Do you think religion overall (leaving out phrases like there is some good in religion) is good or bad?

Again 'religion' is about as meaningless as the word 'sport', there is nothing inherently 'good' or 'bad' about a sport since it doesn't mean much by itself, people might think of the most popular sports such as soccer, etc and come up with an opinion of those, but none if that means 'sport' itself is good or bad. The same applies to religion.

Religion doesn't even need to be able accepting certain beliefs, as it can just be a type of cult, nor does it need to invoke a deity. As such I have no opinion either way about 'religion' as a bare concept.
Do you mean to say that even atheism could be a religion?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:22:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:35:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:25:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.

Of course good is relative. I've seen suggestions made that we can be good without God. So we obviously can allow about loose terminology since we use them all the time.

Do you avoid using the term good? If a child who didn't know who Hitler was asked you if Hitler was a good man or not, would you ask him what his definition of good is?

Do you think we can be sufficiently humanitarian without God?

There are plenty of ethical systems that exist, and most of them would regard Hitler as 'not-good' at the very least, 'good' is only meaningful if you define it, and as such yes it's perfectly possible to be good without god.

We obviously don't always need to define good. An infant for instance might not know that a particular action is bad, until it's explained to them that it's bad or not good. We don't have to explain to them what good means when we tell them not to ring the neighbors doorbell without a reason.

There isn't anything particularly good about selling everything and following someone like a vagabond. In fact in most cases it would probably be bad. However for that individual, who considered himself good by abiding with the major principles that dictated good behavior, he was not good for rejecting a proposal that would have lead to something that would have benefited others outside of his circle (himself, family, friends, etc.).

In fact I would argue it's more possible, since most ethical systems root what is 'good' to conscious well-being in some form or another, and most theistic ethical systems (at least the ones I have come across) actually divorce what is 'good' directly from well-being.

Can you expound on this a bit? What do you mean by rooting good to conscious well being, and divorcing 'good' from well-being.?

Terminology is only loose if you leave it poorly defined, which is exactly what 'good' and 'morals' are.
Again I would go back to explaining good and bad to an infant. I'm sure you're going to divorce definition when proclaiming to an infant who's hitting his little sister "Not good Johnny!", "Bad boy".
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:49:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 12:02:19 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:20:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:15:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Part 2.

Do you think religion overall (leaving out phrases like there is some good in religion) is good or bad?

Again 'religion' is about as meaningless as the word 'sport', there is nothing inherently 'good' or 'bad' about a sport since it doesn't mean much by itself, people might think of the most popular sports such as soccer, etc and come up with an opinion of those, but none if that means 'sport' itself is good or bad. The same applies to religion.

Religion doesn't even need to be able accepting certain beliefs, as it can just be a type of cult, nor does it need to invoke a deity. As such I have no opinion either way about 'religion' as a bare concept.
Do you mean to say that even atheism could be a religion?

No, because atheism is precisely the rejection of this.

However, that is not to say there are not atheist cults that could not be regarded as a religion. Secular Buddhism?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:58:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 12:22:26 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:35:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:25:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.

Of course good is relative. I've seen suggestions made that we can be good without God. So we obviously can allow about loose terminology since we use them all the time.

Do you avoid using the term good? If a child who didn't know who Hitler was asked you if Hitler was a good man or not, would you ask him what his definition of good is?

Do you think we can be sufficiently humanitarian without God?

There are plenty of ethical systems that exist, and most of them would regard Hitler as 'not-good' at the very least, 'good' is only meaningful if you define it, and as such yes it's perfectly possible to be good without god.

We obviously don't always need to define good. An infant for instance might not know that a particular action is bad, until it's explained to them that it's bad or not good. We don't have to explain to them what good means when we tell them not to ring the neighbors doorbell without a reason.

Then you are just saying things are bad because you think they are bad. That's a rather arbitrary definition of 'bad', why not just call those actions 'plank' or 'wonga?' they would convey the same meaning and justification.

There isn't anything particularly good about selling everything and following someone like a vagabond. In fact in most cases it would probably be bad. However for that individual, who considered himself good by abiding with the major principles that dictated good behavior, he was not good for rejecting a proposal that would have lead to something that would have benefited others outside of his circle (himself, family, friends, etc.).

Elaborate on what these 'major principles' are and you will have generated a moral system, which is exactly the point I have been making all along.

In fact I would argue it's more possible, since most ethical systems root what is 'good' to conscious well-being in some form or another, and most theistic ethical systems (at least the ones I have come across) actually divorce what is 'good' directly from well-being.

Can you expound on this a bit? What do you mean by rooting good to conscious well being, and divorcing 'good' from well-being.?

Having morality grounded in well being immediately and naturally gives a system where we care about what others feel and think, the well being of ourselves and our kin, and the building of a generally happy society. Which are collarless of the values that everyone will fundamentally hold, lest they be in a self-defeating position.

That is a secular grounding of morality, whereas theistic moral systems do not necessarily tie morality to the same principles, and as such acts that do not influence sentient well-being can and are seen as moral (slavery, rape, genocide, for e.g.).

As such all systems that go against these principles are self-destructive in some way or another.

Terminology is only loose if you leave it poorly defined, which is exactly what 'good' and 'morals' are.
Again I would go back to explaining good and bad to an infant. I'm sure you're going to divorce definition when proclaiming to an infant who's hitting his little sister "Not good Johnny!", "Bad boy".

Again this is just question begging, and just you asserting what is and ipsie dixit.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 1:01:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 12:58:15 PM, Envisage wrote:


Having morality grounded in well being immediately and naturally gives a system where we care about what others feel and think, the well being of ourselves and our kin, and the building of a generally happy society. Which are collarless of the values that everyone will fundamentally hold, lest they be in a self-defeating position.

That is a secular grounding of morality, whereas theistic moral systems do not necessarily tie morality to the same principles, and as such acts that do not influence sentient well-being can and are seen as moral (slavery, rape, genocide, for e.g.).


Huh? How is this a criticism of theistic moral systems? Utilitarianism (for example) can do the same thing. Some of the most famous counter examples to utilitarianism involve instances in which one can then justify slavery, rape, genocide, etc.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 1:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.

And in his attempt to answer you, you dodged and again claimed he didn't answer you. If he is charged with making you understand, it may take more than one post and you must be prepared to allow him more than one post.

This is debate. We address profound questions. 10 second soundbites are for MTV. His questions were not difficult or unreasonable. Yet you dodged them and accused HIM of dodging!

Your claim that the :...argument either becomes circular or false." when good is defined is curious. You didn't expound on it. It is rational and prudent that he ask you questions to better understand what your comment meant.

His ultimate goal is not to define good, but to communicate an idea in his head to you. He tries to understand whats in your head so as to better communicate his idea to you, and you immediately accuse him of avoiding the question. And then you unilaterally decide what the entire thesis of his post is about!!

Now if a theist should ask, "Why are you here?" You'd answer as if you've taken umbrage.

sheeesh.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 1:07:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 1:01:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:58:15 PM, Envisage wrote:


Having morality grounded in well being immediately and naturally gives a system where we care about what others feel and think, the well being of ourselves and our kin, and the building of a generally happy society. Which are collarless of the values that everyone will fundamentally hold, lest they be in a self-defeating position.

That is a secular grounding of morality, whereas theistic moral systems do not necessarily tie morality to the same principles, and as such acts that do not influence sentient well-being can and are seen as moral (slavery, rape, genocide, for e.g.).


Huh? How is this a criticism of theistic moral systems? Utilitarianism (for example) can do the same thing. Some of the most famous counter examples to utilitarianism involve instances in which one can then justify slavery, rape, genocide, etc.

My criticism was that theistic moral systems do less morality from human well-being, which is a self-destructive position. And you give examples of such a divorcement to try and prove your point which actually proves my point... If moral systems do what goes against that value then it's a bad system.

If utilitarianism goes against those values then it's a bad system. If it has those values and still yields results such as rape and slavery then we should question our preconceived notions that *all* cases of rape/slavery etc are inherently bad.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 1:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

But it can be an easy concept...

The problem is that despite us being capable of doing "good" we are still capable of doing bad, it's almost irrelevant to ask "can we be good without God", of course we can but it is not really about the good we could do because it doesn't negate the bad, we are much more selfish than we really could imagine especially when we comprehend an eternal perspective, our good is laughable to God which is why obedience to God is most crucial, because in obeying God we are led by God and if we are led by God then we are pleasing Him in our life and if we live pleasing to Him then we are "good" we are filled with the light of God.

If you notice in the passage you provided in the following verse after the one you sited this is what happened...

"22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."

We all have areas in our life that God would like to adjust and these things are specific to us as individuals like as you said, in other words if it had been me that was speaking to Jesus His answer could have been completely different, for starters I'm not a rich man nor do I "cherish" material possessions but my problems and selfishness are unique, the lesson here is to hear and obey, not necessarily "riches" it's more of a principle or a teaching.

Yes Christ raised the bar by cutting evil at the roots like for example in Matthew 5
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

but at the same time gives us the key (power) to reach the goal, and that is in our thoughts! Our thoughts are what matters to God because our thoughts pave the way to our actions, buy eliminating the problems in our minds by focusing on God and obeying Him our actions becomes effortless.
By allowing God to change or improve our perceptions and thoughts it becomes easy to avoid the sin, by creating an "environment" in our mind that seeks to put God first our actions will reflect it.

If you also notice that the instruction from Jesus was not just one of the ten commandments but was unique to the individual. When a person desires to seek God and involve God within obedience will become unique to that individual, God may instruct me differently than someone else, God may have me adjust something specific that may be not be an issue for another ect...

So to me the principle in the verse you supplied is not necessarily one must give up their possessions to be "good" but that we must be willing to listen and obey God for direction as individuals.
I don't think Jesus makes anything hard, I think He actually has made it easier, easier that is to honor God and live a life that is "good" to Him. Easier in the sense that we have an understanding and are equipped to be able to reach such goals.

I didn't mean to ramble there Roderick and none of this is directed at you but your post just has me thinking out loud lol.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:35:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

The question of "Can we be good without God?" is vastly different from "What does it mean to be perfect?". One can be good without believing in God, yes. However, if Christians and Jews are correct, then goodness itself would not exist without God. Indeed, there are many atheistic arguments on the subjectivity of morality that state that "good and evil don't really exist at all", in response to this very proposition by Christians.

The question of perfection is "How does one live a perfect life?" Well, if God does not exist, then everyone is perfect, and every life is perfect, because good and evil do not actually exist, but are instead a product of social construction by way of rules. If God does exist, then perfection has requirements. One of the requirements, as you have pointed out (Although I personally would not have used the NIV) was non-materialism and philanthropy: Not really "owning" anything, and giving to the needy.

It is important to realize when what we think is one question is actually multiple ones.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:43:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Good in whose eyes or according to whose standards?

In human eyes quite possibly. Though you would then need a universal standard of what is good and what is bad. In other words a universal morality. Mankind is a long long way from achieving that, even after all these millennia we are no closer than we ever were.

In God's eyes, and they are the ones that really count, never. We were not created to have the intellectual capacity to truly discriminate between what is right and what is wrong as history has demonstrated very effectively ever since the Garden of Eden.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:46:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:25:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.

Of course good is relative. I've seen suggestions made that we can be good without God. So we obviously can allow about loose terminology since we use them all the time.

Do you avoid using the term good? If a child who didn't know who Hitler was asked you if Hitler was a good man or not, would you ask him what his definition of good is?

Do you think we can be sufficiently humanitarian without God?

If anyone, including a child, asked if Hitler was good or bad then it would be safe to assume that they already knew what those words meant, wouldn't it?
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:49:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 12:02:19 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:20:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:15:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Part 2.

Do you think religion overall (leaving out phrases like there is some good in religion) is good or bad?

Again 'religion' is about as meaningless as the word 'sport', there is nothing inherently 'good' or 'bad' about a sport since it doesn't mean much by itself, people might think of the most popular sports such as soccer, etc and come up with an opinion of those, but none if that means 'sport' itself is good or bad. The same applies to religion.

Religion doesn't even need to be able accepting certain beliefs, as it can just be a type of cult, nor does it need to invoke a deity. As such I have no opinion either way about 'religion' as a bare concept.
Do you mean to say that even atheism could be a religion?

If I were religious then I wouldn't want atheism to be defined inclusively. At best I would call it a "belief system".
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 3:09:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 1:07:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 1:01:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:58:15 PM, Envisage wrote:


Having morality grounded in well being immediately and naturally gives a system where we care about what others feel and think, the well being of ourselves and our kin, and the building of a generally happy society. Which are collarless of the values that everyone will fundamentally hold, lest they be in a self-defeating position.

That is a secular grounding of morality, whereas theistic moral systems do not necessarily tie morality to the same principles, and as such acts that do not influence sentient well-being can and are seen as moral (slavery, rape, genocide, for e.g.).


Huh? How is this a criticism of theistic moral systems? Utilitarianism (for example) can do the same thing. Some of the most famous counter examples to utilitarianism involve instances in which one can then justify slavery, rape, genocide, etc.

My criticism was that theistic moral systems do less morality from human well-being, which is a self-destructive position. And you give examples of such a divorcement to try and prove your point which actually proves my point... If moral systems do what goes against that value then it's a bad system.


If that's your criticism then I don't see how mine's doesn't apply. Utiltarianism is a secular moral system that can lead to these consequences, so by that, secular moral systems are no better off.

If utilitarianism goes against those values then it's a bad system. If it has those values and still yields results such as rape and slavery then we should question our preconceived notions that *all* cases of rape/slavery etc are inherently bad.

Why could that, mutatis mutandis, not be applied to theistic moral systems then?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 3:36:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 2:46:01 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:25:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:16:48 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:13:39 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:56:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Define 'good' and the argument either becomes circular or false.
Do you think Adolph Hitler was a good man?

If someone asked you to classify certain historical figures as being either good or bad, leaving out phrases like "he did some good things", how would you classify Adolph Hitler?

That's avoiding the question. The entire thesis of your post is about 'good', yet you have left it undefined and unparameterized. As such your argument is meaningless as it stands, since 'good' is meaningless.

Of course good is relative. I've seen suggestions made that we can be good without God. So we obviously can allow about loose terminology since we use them all the time.

Do you avoid using the term good? If a child who didn't know who Hitler was asked you if Hitler was a good man or not, would you ask him what his definition of good is?

Do you think we can be sufficiently humanitarian without God?

If anyone, including a child, asked if Hitler was good or bad then it would be safe to assume that they already knew what those words meant, wouldn't it?

No, it would be safe to assume that, like most people, he thought he knew what they were, or that Hitler did.

The trouble is that there are so many ideas of what is good or bad. No-one likes to think they are bad.

Do you believe you are good? Christ didn't believe he was and told someone off for calling him "Good teacher" saying, accurately, that in fact only his father is good.

You can guarantee that Jimmy Saville thought he was Good, Likewise Charles Manson, or that Bundy person, because according to their moral standards they were good.

Even a true paedophile believes that we are the bad ones depriving children of what they want and need.

There truly is no remotely universal idea of what constitutes good and bad.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 3:37:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Don't worry, only us saints are called to sell everything we have before we can go preach the good news to the poor. A few of God's believers end up selling their possessions to but not for the same reasons that we saints do. Christians weren't made to be saints. Most of them were made to remain religiously ignorant to the Truth of who they are in God.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

Your right. Many Christians don't follow this. Atheist groups like the Richard Dawkins Foundation of Reason and Science have raised money to go towards charities. Secular non profit organizations commit their money donations towards finding cures for things like cancer and AIDs.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 9:52:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 3:36:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:46:01 PM, Idealist1 wrote:

If anyone, including a child, asked if Hitler was good or bad then it would be safe to assume that they already knew what those words meant, wouldn't it?

No, it would be safe to assume that, like most people, he thought he knew what they were, or that Hitler did.

But everyone thinks that they are the ones who are right, so how do you make that determination? You think that you know what good is, I think that I know, we are all subjective beings with subjective understandings. If someone asks you if your dinner was good, you don't ask them if they understand what good means.

The trouble is that there are so many ideas of what is good or bad. No-one likes to think they are bad.

Do you believe you are good? Christ didn't believe he was and told someone off for calling him "Good teacher" saying, accurately, that in fact only his father is good.

You can guarantee that Jimmy Saville thought he was Good, Likewise Charles Manson, or that Bundy person, because according to their moral standards they were good.

Even a true paedophile believes that we are the bad ones depriving children of what they want and need.

There truly is no remotely universal idea of what constitutes good and bad.

See what I mean? You spent this whole post preaching about what is good, as if you are the sole keeper of understanding. Tell me, isn't it possible that everything you believe to be the truth is totally wrong?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 3:40:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:52:50 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/4/2014 3:36:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:46:01 PM, Idealist1 wrote:

If anyone, including a child, asked if Hitler was good or bad then it would be safe to assume that they already knew what those words meant, wouldn't it?

No, it would be safe to assume that, like most people, he thought he knew what they were, or that Hitler did.

But everyone thinks that they are the ones who are right, so how do you make that determination? You think that you know what good is, I think that I know, we are all subjective beings with subjective understandings. If someone asks you if your dinner was good, you don't ask them if they understand what good means.

Yes of course everyone thinks they are right, however I know God is right therefore I will stick with what he says, thanks.

Your illustration doesn't work in this context because it uses an entirely different aspect of the word "good". Food does not have a morality. However I might ask him or her what sense they meant the word good in, taste, nutrition or cooking.


The trouble is that there are so many ideas of what is good or bad. No-one likes to think they are bad.

Do you believe you are good? Christ didn't believe he was and told someone off for calling him "Good teacher" saying, accurately, that in fact only his father is good.

You can guarantee that Jimmy Saville thought he was Good, Likewise Charles Manson, or that Bundy person, because according to their moral standards they were good.

Even a true paedophile believes that we are the bad ones depriving children of what they want and need.

There truly is no remotely universal idea of what constitutes good and bad.

See what I mean? You spent this whole post preaching about what is good, as if you are the sole keeper of understanding. Tell me, isn't it possible that everything you believe to be the truth is totally wrong?

No it isn't possible. I go to great lengths to make sure it is right, it is too important not to because people's eternal lives depend on it. That is why I teach only what God teaches and what his son and the Apostles teach also.

However can you seriously argue that there is a truly universal idea of what good and bad are, outside of scripture? because if you can't then you have simply proven my case for me. Do you know of any other being who can tell us, without the slightest doubt, "the beginning from the end" and therefore tell us whether, in the long term, what we are considering is beneficial for all, for ever, or not? I certainly don't, but I know God can.

It has to be remembered that God is our original father, and as any loving father, only wants what is best for his creation. All of it, not just mankind. ONly he truly knows what is best.

After all, how can we possibly benefit him?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 3:43:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 1:07:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 1:01:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:58:15 PM, Envisage wrote:


Having morality grounded in well being immediately and naturally gives a system where we care about what others feel and think, the well being of ourselves and our kin, and the building of a generally happy society. Which are collarless of the values that everyone will fundamentally hold, lest they be in a self-defeating position.

That is a secular grounding of morality, whereas theistic moral systems do not necessarily tie morality to the same principles, and as such acts that do not influence sentient well-being can and are seen as moral (slavery, rape, genocide, for e.g.).


Huh? How is this a criticism of theistic moral systems? Utilitarianism (for example) can do the same thing. Some of the most famous counter examples to utilitarianism involve instances in which one can then justify slavery, rape, genocide, etc.

My criticism was that theistic moral systems do less morality from human well-being, which is a self-destructive position. And you give examples of such a divorcement to try and prove your point which actually proves my point... If moral systems do what goes against that value then it's a bad system.

If utilitarianism goes against those values then it's a bad system. If it has those values and still yields results such as rape and slavery then we should question our preconceived notions that *all* cases of rape/slavery etc are inherently bad.

God's moral standards are beneficial to all humanity, and are the only ones which truly are. They prevent us from having problems we are not even capable of understanding, as well as from causing such problems for others..
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 3:51:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 10:54:31 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Apparently not when we put Jesus into the equation.

Matthew 19:21
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


The problem seems to be that if someone truly wishes to be good, or reach a level of perfection, they would have to deal with the bar being raised from the level the individual thinks is acceptable, to the level that Christ places. This is not an easy concept to grasp, even for many Christians like myself.

If you cannot accept the concept of the bar being raised that high, are you truly Christian? An important question to ask yourself.

The point is that only God can truly foresee the outcome of every decision, and the effect it has, not just on us, but on every other human being.

That is how high the bar is raised and is the only way we can truly love our fellow man as ourselves, as Christ insisted we must, and set us the example of so doing.

There is no place for "self" in Christianity. That is what so many find truly hard to swallow, we have all been brought up to put self first.