Originally posted by @kellyjayWell, you have admitted that you're "evil and wicked" so "falling short" is going to be par for the course for you. Your supposed "grasp of what is good" is tangled up in your ideology about supernatural things. It makes you a misanthrope, to my way of thinking.
Like you I attempt to do good, but the more I grasp what good is the more I know I fall
short towards it on my own.
Originally posted by @kellyjayNo harm. No deception. No coercion. Apply empathy and other attributes.
So what standard do you apply to people, yourself included, and when you apply that
standard, do you ignore things in either them or yourself, that goes against that standard,
ever?
What does it mean to "ignore things"?
What is the opposite of "ignoring" a bad thing that someone does?
Originally posted by @fmfBelieve it or not I don't care what impresses you. You said ask someone who has interacted
I am not impressed by your ideology of misanthropy.
with you, I have, I don't call you good for things you've said here. This conversation reminds
me of the other one I'm having about DNA, only the good mutations are supposedly going
forward so the end is successfully good.
Not hard to get there if you believe that, just look at what pleases you about yourself
ignore the rest you are a good person. The trouble is if you admit that you've not always
lived up to good standards, you are flawed, and therefore not as good as you claim to be.
Having bad things in your past isn't brushed away just because they are in your past and
you regret them they are your history. Hold someone to some standard you ignore for
yourself you also fall short, justifying bad behavior when you know it is bad leaves you
really far away from being good.
Claiming to be good with regrets for bad behavior doesn't change you into a good person
yet nonetheless you can still say you really are a good person anyway. Its your standard
of being a good person, you can make up anyway you want.
Originally posted by @kellyjayBut you think everyone, including yourself, is evil and wicked! So what if you now say you don't call me good? You've shot your rhetorical wad. Everyone is "evil and wicked". You, me and everyone. So there we have it.
You said ask someone who has interacted with you, I have, I don't call you good for things you've said here.
Originally posted by @fmfYou have to have "ignore things" explained?
No harm. No deception. No coercion. Apply empathy and other attributes.
What does it mean to "ignore things"?
What is the opposite of "ignoring" a bad thing that someone does?
You just leave them out of the factors when making a case for if someone is good or bad,
they beat their kids, but they go to work everyday and are nice to the co-workers, fellow
church members, neighbors, and gives money to homeless. Bill Clinton lied under oath,
but he did things people liked, if we see bad things in someone they are not wiped away
by other things they do, they are all part of the person's make up.
The opposite of ignoring would be to acknowledge what a bad person does.
Originally posted by @kellyjayI have merely claimed that I am basically a good person. whodey asked "Who here thinks that they are a good person?" And he also asked "Are people basically good?" My answers were 'I am basically a good person' and 'Yes people are basically good'. I haven't claimed to be perfect. I have not claimed that I am not flawed. I have not claimed all people are good. You're making stuff up.
Not hard to get there if you believe that, just look at what pleases you about yourself
ignore the rest you are a good person. The trouble is if you admit that you've not always
lived up to good standards, you are flawed, and therefore not as good as you claim to be.
Originally posted by @fmfYes, and I standby that, and having dealt with you for years confirms my stance because
But you think everyone, including yourself, is evil and wicked! So what if you now say you don't call me good? You've shot your rhetorical wad. Everyone is "evil and wicked". You, me and everyone. So there we have it.
I have seen things from you that I would not call good. The standard of good you think
can ignore things that are wrong, bad, harmful, shameful, unloving, uncaring?
What type of standard for good could there be that ignored things when looked at were
really selfish, evil, hateful, spiteful, and on and on?
Originally posted by @kellyjayIf you have "bad things" in your past that has made you adopt your misanthropic perspective on yourself and your family and friends and community and your fellow humans generally, so be it.
Having bad things in your past isn't brushed away just because they are in your past and you regret them they are your history. Hold someone to some standard you ignore for yourself you also fall short, justifying bad behavior when you know it is bad leaves you really far away from being good.
Originally posted by @kellyjaySomebody lies. Somebody beats their children. How am I "just leaving [these things] out of the factors"?
You just leave them out of the factors when making a case for if someone is good or bad,
they beat their kids, but they go to work everyday and are nice to the co-workers, fellow
church members, neighbors, and gives money to homeless. Bill Clinton lied under oath,
but he did things people liked, if we see bad things in someone they are not wiped away
by other things they do, they are all part of the person's make up.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfI'll ask this again, acknowledging you have not had a chance to respond the first time I said
I have merely claimed that I am basically a good person. whodey asked "Who here thinks that they are a good person?" And he also asked "Are people basically good?" My answers were 'I am basically a good person' and 'Yes people are basically good'. I haven't claimed to be perfect. I have not claimed that I am not flawed. I have not claimed all people are good. You're making stuff up.
it yet. NOT slamming you over this, but it is a vital point in my opinion.
Whatever standard we have for good, could it ignore bad behavior and call someone good?
If it is a good standard can it ever lower its standard to justify bad behavior?
If it did lower its standards, than is it is really truly good, I think not, it has be constantly
good at all cost or it isn't.
Originally posted by @kellyjayMoral codes make interactions between people work. Moral codes vary in terms of their formation, content, application and effect. The "standards of good" are the result of nature, nurture and communal living.
What type of standard for good could there be that ignored things when looked at were really selfish, evil, hateful, spiteful, and on and on?
Originally posted by @fmfThere is no record of anywhere that Jesus calls everyone evil and wicked. This doctrine is a fabrication of the Christian church designed to humiliate people and get them to feel guilty so that they can be controlled by the church. The Christian church is among the most crocked and evil organisations on earth. They have almost nothing in common with the doctrine of Christ and are more like the Pharisees.
Your assertion that you and others are "evil and wicked" has little or no merit, no matter what superstitions and mean-spiritedness towards your fellow humans underpin it.
Jesus said that there are many good people and called them blessed:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:3-10 KJV)