Are you a good person?

[KingandPriest]

Morality, right and wrong are all difficult topics that many people struggle with. I have heard some say, and some write on this forum, that they are good people.

This statements means different things to different people. For example, if a person does everything right/good with the exception of commuting murder 1 time (Yes cold blooded murder). This person never lied, stole or did anything else bad for their whole life.

In the context of criminals, they are branded as criminals or felons even if they only broke the law one time. Once a person commits murder, they are by definition a murderer. For the rest of their life, they will be a murderer regardless of what good deeds they may do.

This line of thought leads to the following questions:
1. Are you a good person?
2. What makes a person good?
3. What makes a person a bad person?
4. Does the good deeds in the example above outweigh the murder?
5. Is a single bad act enough to disqualify a person from being called good?
6. Does anyone have sufficient information about the life of any individual to declare a person good or bad?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 70 by KingandPriest]

Despite yourself you have made statements and done other than ask questions. Indeed your questions say volumes. Like that you seem to have no respect for the conversation.
You don't have anything to say, except to ask questions.
Is that your argument?

In answering your questions I have demonstrated evil character of those believing in Bible is simply a PERSPECTIVE away, I have shown it positively otherwise.

All you have done is ask questions, apparently with no concern for the answers.

So, we have answered many of your questions, do your due diligence and synthesize conclusions from them.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 70 by KingandPriest]

Despite yourself you have made statements and done other than ask questions. Indeed your questions say volumes. Like that you seem to have no respect for the conversation.

Can you provide an example of one my statements which show that what I believe about the Bible is not what the Bible says.

You have made a claim, and thus far cannot back it up.

Asking followup questions shows interest in your actual responses. If you claim asking a follow up question is a sign of disrespect, you must see a vast amount of disrespect from theists and non-theists who ask followup questions as very disrespectful.

You don't have anything to say, except to ask questions.
Is that your argument?

No, I am trying to understand why people respond the way they do. When I ask a question about what is love, and a person responds by bashing Christianity, or God, I find this response interesting. This leads to follow up questions which then show an even greater bias or hatred of Christianity or the Bible.

To gain an understanding, one often needs to ask questions. I have not presented an argument for anything yet. So far I have been focused on gaining an understanding.

In answering your questions I have demonstrated evil character of those believing in Bible is simply a PERSPECTIVE away, I have shown it positively otherwise.

You admitted earlier that your responses were based from a position of bias. So demonstrating evil character only appears to work from a biased perspective. If you begin with an objective or unbiased perspective, the same conclusions will not be reached.

You have only stated your opinions of hypothetical scenarios. How is this proof of your claim?

All you have done is ask questions, apparently with no concern for the answers.

So, we have answered many of your questions, do your due diligence and synthesize conclusions from them.

I have shown concern for your answers and have asked for genuine answers instead of rambling sarcasm.

Your responses thus far to showing concern for your answers has been to "read what you wrote" or read what I wrote. If I ask for clarification of sarcasm and your only response is to say read the sarcastic comment again, who is really showing no respect for the conversation?

[Willum]

[Replying to KingandPriest]
Bias... I am also biased that 2 + 2 = 4. However I can construct a consistent number system where it equals 11. That is what I mean by bias.

It's not all about me K&P, I have been talking an talking... I'd like to hear about you.
Tell me, what conclusions have you drawn, have I edified you at all? Have I helped you or contributed to you in a meaningfully way iaw what you'd expect from the site?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to KingandPriest]
Bias... I am also biased that 2 + 2 = 4. However I can construct a consistent number system where it equals 11. That is what I mean by bias.

It's not all about me K&P, I have been talking an talking... I'd like to hear about you.
Tell me, what conclusions have you drawn, have I edified you at all?

Thus far no edification has taken place as a result of your posts.
I have not come to a conclusion yet, but your posts are leading me to conclude that you use sarcasm as a method to mask what you are truly thinking or perceive about a topic. Rather than approach the topic head on with direct challenges or direct evidence, you beat around the bush to throw arrows while keeping yourself at a safe distance. This could be as a result of a lack of genuine understanding on the topic, or a result of personal bias. You stated that you post from a position of bias, but there is still much to learn about why you write what you write, and what caused this bias to develop in the first place.

Have I helped you or contributed to you in a meaningfully way iaw what you'd expect from the site?

As of now, I would say no because your posts are often too short or contain too many sarcastic statements to gather an understanding of what position(s) you have on a topic, and what is the underlying progenitor of your perspective.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 74 by KingandPriest]
No, that is not right. I use several methods to communicate the same message each time, hoping one will work.

And yet we have several pages of you asking questions for elaboration, often leaving the subject as if satisfied.
I suspect you simply are using my sarcasm, and whatever else to dismiss my statements in order to avoid a truth you don't want to face. When I used sarcasm, or "the argument ad absurdum," I was using communication techniques. They obviously worked, because you never actually objected to anything, just kept probing with the "stump the dummy," technique.

If you aren't interested in what people contribute, why are you here? This is rhetorical.
Goodbye.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 74 by KingandPriest]
No, that is not right. I use several methods to communicate the same message each time, hoping one will work.

And yet we have several pages of you asking questions for elaboration, often leaving the subject as if satisfied.
I suspect you simply are using my sarcasm, and whatever else to dismiss my statements in order to avoid a truth you don't want to face. When I used sarcasm, or "the argument ad absurdum," I was using communication techniques. They obviously worked, because you never actually objected to anything, just kept probing with the "stump the dummy," technique.

If you aren't interested in what people contribute, why are you here? This is rhetorical.
Goodbye.

Asking follow up questions is actually an indicator that one is not satisfied with the explanation given.

The sarcasm you use does not present a clear statement or position which can be understood or debated against.

The communication techniques did not work, because I did not understand enough to accept or reject. This was the purpose of follow up questions to get a genuine answer and not more sarcasm. You make statements which appear to be on both sides of the fence. So it is difficult to know where you actually stand. Instead of clarifying, you just ask me to read it again. After reading it again, I have more questions which you find a sign of disrespect.

I show interest by reading what a person posts, and then asking follow up questions for something that is not clear. So far, you call this type of interest rude or disrespectful.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 74 by KingandPriest]
No, that is not right. I use several methods to communicate the same message each time, hoping one will work.

And yet we have several pages of you asking questions for elaboration, often leaving the subject as if satisfied.
I suspect you simply are using my sarcasm, and whatever else to dismiss my statements in order to avoid a truth you don't want to face. When I used sarcasm, or "the argument ad absurdum," I was using communication techniques. They obviously worked, because you never actually objected to anything, just kept probing with the "stump the dummy," technique.

If you aren't interested in what people contribute, why are you here? This is rhetorical.
Goodbye.

Asking follow up questions is actually an indicator that one is not satisfied with the explanation given.

Not at all. Follow up questions may simply be an effort to ask for clarification; that the 'explanation given' may be susceptible to interpretation or otherwise be ambiguous.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by Talishi]

I didn't vote because I don't accept the premise that there are good and bad people. Republicans call Democratic Party voters bad because they don't vote for their candidate, and vice versa. Seahawks fans call the Rams bad because they beat their team. Catholics call Protestants bad because they don't have seven books in their OT that Catholics never read anyway.

I think of certain sociopaths as "bad" people.... if anyone can be, they can be.
But yeah, I see what you mean.

It's time for us to stop demonizing each other.
Some people do things that we consider wrong.

They may STILL be "good people" even if they did a bad thing.

I think I will leave it up to the superstitious to call each other "demons", while the rest of try to figure out how to deal with the huge diversity that we are faced with in the modern era.

It's a lot easier to victimize someone who you consider a bad person... not so much if you start off with the notion that all humans are GOOD, now is it?

Maybe that's why Abrahamic religions insist that all people are sinners.
Evil from the get go.

Time for the world to move away from such barbarism, in my opinion.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 4 by Talishi]
I think of certain sociopaths as "bad" people.... if anyone can be, they can be.
But yeah, I see what you mean.

It's time for us to stop demonizing each other.
Some people do things that we consider wrong.

They may STILL be "good people" even if they did a bad thing.

I think I will leave it up to the superstitious to call each other "demons", while the rest of try to figure out how to deal with the huge diversity that we are faced with in the modern era.

It's a lot easier to victimize someone who you consider a bad person... not so much if you start off with the notion that all humans are GOOD, now is it?

Maybe that's why Abrahamic religions insist that all people are sinners.
Evil from the get go.

Time for the world to move away from such barbarism, in my opinion.

The bible does not equate being a sinner to being evil. A sinner is a person who committed one or more sins.

Just like the term murderer, liar, thief, etc. These are words which describe the actions of a person, not a permanent state of good or evil.

[Willum]

[Replying to Danmark]

His follow-up questions seemed to lead to other topics, leading me to believe he was satisfied with any given subject.

Little did I know...