Originally posted by @kellyjayYes. Stop trying to tie your definition of what is "good" and "not good" to me and to the fact that you don't like or don't agree with some of the observations I make and some of the questions I ask on a debate and discussion board. It makes you sound incredibly petty.
I recall hearing you say that before.
You have a point?
Originally posted by @fmfI'm not by choice singling you out here, if you bring up old conversations that is you. I
It is you who keeps mentioning my behaviour on this message board and you who keeps saying you think I am not good. By contrast, I have defined 'morality' and I have defined 'good'. I have also defined what I understand by "basically good". You have done none of these things and seem determined to talk about how you don't like how I post on this forum. Stop deflecting. Stop running away. Define your terms, like I have.
have been saying we all have issues with being good. I've also feel I've been to
generous in suggesting we can be at least 98% good when 100% is required. I believe
we are much lower than that in what we should be. Due to how low we are and how that
is all we know it is easy to deceive ourselves by the comparing of our lives to one
another. If we make judgment calls thinking were not as bad as someone else, much
better than others, we are comparing not good enough to not good enough. This of
course has none of us as good, by your standards you maybe, but if your standard
accepts some wickedness and evil in small doses your goodness is flawed as all of our
are.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfAs I said, you are turning this about me and you and I'm not going to go 10 pages with you
Yes. Stop trying to tie your definition of what is "good" and "not good" to me and to the fact that you don't like or don't agree with some of the observations I make and some of the questions I ask on a debate and discussion board. It makes you sound incredibly petty.
again. Don't think this is a deflection it is a rejection.
Originally posted by @kellyjayIt's you who has been trying to make this about my posting record. I have not been replying in kind. For 10 pages I have been NOT using your make-it-personal tactic when defining what 'basically good' means. I have not been trying to make the definition of 'good' about you.
As I said, you are turning this about me and you and I'm not going to go 10 pages with you again.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 to KellyJayHe's running away from a conversation. Yet again.
Capitulation.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kellyjayIf you want to call yourself "evil and wicked" - or call me "evil and wicked" for that matter - that's your prerogative. Call yourself what you want. Call me what you want. Compare yourself to whoever you want. Be as generous or as misanthropic as you want. But you haven't shown how people are not "basically good".
I'm not by choice singling you out here, if you bring up old conversations that is you. I
have been saying we all have issues with being good. I've also feel I've been to
generous in suggesting we can be at least 98% good when 100% is required. I believe
we are much lower than that in what we should be. Due to how low we are and how that
is all ard
accepts some wickedness and evil in small doses your goodness is flawed as all of our
are.
Originally posted by @fmfI'm calling our whole race less than good, all of us have fallen short of due to our sinful
If you want to call yourself "evil and wicked" - or call me "evil and wicked" for that matter - that's your prerogative. Call yourself what you want. Call me what you want. Compare yourself to whoever you want. Be as generous or as misanthropic as you want. But you haven't shown how people are not "basically good".
nature. As I pointed out to you only a 100% good, is really good. If your version of good
is simply good enough, that then means you have fallen short of being good.
What you are saying is that there are levels of wickedness and evil you are willing to
accept to be good enough, and not actually good. So if one falls short of perfection by
being less than 100% good, that one isn't good due to the wickedness and evil they are
willing to accept in their own actions, and those around them, so they can simply live
with themselves as good enough.
Originally posted by @kellyjaySo, everyone is "evil" and "wicked" because they "fall short" and are "not good enough" and "not acceptable" to you. Right?
I'm calling our whole race less than good, all of us have fallen short of due to our sinful
nature. As I pointed out to you only a 100% good, is really good. If your version of good
is simply good enough, that then means you have fallen short of being good.
What you are saying is that there are levels of wickedness and evil you are willing to
accept ...[text shortened]... eir own actions, and those around them, so they can simply live
with themselves as good enough.
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfWe are not good people, it took you this long to work that out?
So, everyone is "evil" and "wicked" because they "fall short" and are "not good enough" and "not acceptable" to you. Right?
Acceptable is a different question, but the rest yes, we are wicked and evil because all
have fallen short. We are made acceptable by one who paid the price for our guilt, Jesus
Christ who you have rejected and deny.