People are not basically good....

[cashmcall]

I believe God created man good. Despite original sin and our own sins we are basicly good.

Like you, many present day philosophies and worldviews claim the people are basically good and that bad or immoral behavior is the exception. The Bible states quite the opposite - that people are selfish and sinful as soon as they are able to express that kind of behavior. Because of this fact, people need a Savior in order to be acceptable to God. In contrast, the implication of the "people are good" worldview is that good people don't need a Savior. The unending human propensity for hatred, violence, and evil, in the past "righteous" haters seek out and kill the "unrighteous" haters. An underlying spiritual cause of all this hatred is the only reasonable explanation of human depravity. Evolution does not account for the extremes of our violent behavior, but the Christian worldview fits the data exactly - humans are basically evil until transformed by the renewing power of Jesus Christ.

 

[TheJPRD]

Only half-witted mugs are bothered with anything as tedious and temporary as the imagined 'self'.

The second part of your post about "Christianity" and "Americans" was just silly and uninformed. Therefore, I'll ignore it and save you further embarrassment.

Your quote above though is confusing. The "self" is indeed "temporary", for we all die eventually. I don't see what that has to do with the subject, but I can't disagree with it. The "self" is "imagined"?????? You're questioning Descartes' conclusion that "cogito, ergo sum"? You're not sure you're real?...... you're not sure that you think?......... well, yeh, I can see Your point on that one. It doesn't apply to most folks though. OR, are you arguing that the "self" is too much of an "individualistic" term for a communist or socialist to accept??? If that's your meaning, one must conclude that you see human beings as nothing but objects of irrelevance, or objects that belong to the State? You're looking pretty bad on this one, but that's nothing new, is it?

 

[Aus22]

While it is true that man needs rules to live by, I do not think man is not basically good. The root meaning of Religion is rules. So religion can give theses rules. When God created the earth he saw that it was good , (Genesis 1: 26). When he created man in his own image ,and God, saw all the things that he made and they were very good . (Genesis 1 :31)

Of course sin change this to some extent. Man could be corrupted by sin, and was no longer always good. But the basic is the same and most saints try to bring out the good in all people. for example Mother Teresa whose love for them , reflecting God's love. makes them equal, however widely they differ in intellectual and other attainments in physical beauty and grace,(Something beautiful for God"by Malcolm Muggeridge,. It was the love of the poor than made many saints. While people care for others there is goodness The biggest disease today is not leprosy or tuberculosis but the feeling of being unwanted, uncared for and deserted by everybody.*Mother Teressa.

 

[Iolo2]

Even if we all call some particular evil good it will still be evil.

Why should we do that, unless we were making government propaganda for some nasty régime or other, about invading Iraq, for instance?

 

[Cruella]

I don't think people are basically bad. People need and respond to love. Love can't survive in a climate of evil.

 

[dogtowner]

I think people have the capacity for good and that most have some inate.sense of right and wrong. but evil is a powerfull lure and some people sre just defective and doomed to be.evil.

good needs reinforcement though that can come in many forms.

 

[TheJPRD]

I've developed a conceptual theory about this question. This may not be an original idea, but I've not seen it stated elsewhere. I believe that human beings are born with varying degrees of "ability' within them. I believe that they react to their enviornment, their parental and school educations, and their life experiences in different ways. I believe that the vast majority of newborns are capable of becoming "good" by most all definitions, as long as their environment, education, and life experiences support and reinforce our accepted concept of "good". Others are incapable of learning, while others have built-in mental illnesses that lead to cruel behavior regardless of how wonderful society's influences may have been in their lives. The critical factors in all societies, however, are those principles of "good" that are taught through education and experience.

We Conservatives are often criticized for being too rigid and uncompromising when it comes to our principles of behavior. We should never feel guilty for our position, because it's the right one. To not differentiate between "right" and "wrong" with certainty, leads to the disease of moral-equivalency.

 

[Dr.Who]

I've developed a conceptual theory about this question. This may not be an original idea, but I've not seen it stated elsewhere. I believe that human beings are born with varying degrees of "ability' within them. I believe that they react to their enviornment, their parental and school educations, and their life experiences in different ways. I believe that the vast majority of newborns are capable of becoming "good" by most all definitions, as long as their environment, education, and life experiences support and reinforce our accepted concept of "good". Others are incapable of learning, while others have built-in mental illnesses that lead to cruel behavior regardless of how wonderful society's influences may have been in their lives. The critical factors in all societies, however, are those principles of "good" that are taught through education and experience.

We Conservatives are often criticized for being too rigid and uncompromising when it comes to our principles of behavior. We should never feel guilty for our position, because it's the right one. To not differentiate between "right" and "wrong" with certainty, leads to the disease of moral-equivalency.

C.S Lewis said that people are only judged for their failures to be good in the context of their ability, so that the person who did not have the ability to act better than he did would not be judged. I fear I am paraphrasing it poorly since the way I put it it is at ends with the biblical statement that no one is tempted beyond their ability and Lewis was not at all likely to have missed that.

 

[TheJPRD]

C.S Lewis said that people are only judged for their failures to be good in the context of their ability, so that the person who did not have the ability to act better than he did would not be judged. I fear I am paraphrasing it poorly since the way I put it it is at ends with the biblical statement that no one is tempted beyond their ability and Lewis was not at all likely to have missed that.

It's refreshing from time to time to exchange posts with someone who actually thinks before writing. From what I've seen, you also try to be objective. I doubt you and I agree on everything, but I enjoy your posts and insights.

 

[Iolo2]

Yeah...Americans have never been introduced to Christianity.....too funny........you might read our founding documents and if you still believe that rubbish, you should seek professional mental help. No nation in world history has been more influenced by Christianity than the USA.

But then you believe socialism wonderful and that America operates under a capitalist system....wrong on both counts.

You were set up by Deist tax-dodgers, as you know, and currently favour a form of Judaism without the admirable bits. When did any American since Woolman base his behaviour of the New Testament?

 

[Iolo2]

C.S Lewis said that people are only judged for their failures to be good in the context of their ability, so that the person who did not have the ability to act better than he did would not be judged. I fear I am paraphrasing it poorly since the way I put it it is at ends with the biblical statement that no one is tempted beyond their ability and Lewis was not at all likely to have missed that.

I remember him as extremely full of himself,which was comic, and very fond of beer, which I approved. I think his theology was more about popularity than any 'God'.

 

[TheJPRD]

You were set up by Deist tax-dodgers, as you know, and currently favour a form of Judaism without the admirable bits. When did any American since Woolman base his behaviour of the New Testament?

You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? I see no other reason why you continue to post claims that are so embarrassingly WRONG. This thread isn't the place to discuss the religiously-based principles of America's founding fathers. If you find or start an appropriate thread in which to do so, I'll be happy to continue your embarrassment there.

 

[Iolo2]

You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? I see no other reason why you continue to post claims that are so embarrassingly WRONG. This thread isn't the place to discuss the religiously-based principles of America's founding fathers. If you find or start an appropriate thread in which to do so, I'll be happy to continue your embarrassment there.

The claim was that there were American Christians. As you know, there are not - just 'religious' fundamentalist nutters.

 

[TheJPRD]

The claim was that there were American Christians. As you know, there are not - just 'religious' fundamentalist nutters.

No, that was not what you claimed! You claimed that America's founders were Deists and tax-evaders. You make sweeping claims that encompass entire groups of human beings. Like most socialists/Marxists, you don't see human beings as "individuals". You see groups like "bankers", "Christians", "Jews", "Whites", "Blacks", "Women", and "Muslims". America's founders taught us many great truths. The importance of the individual is one of those great truths.

If you'd like to test the veracity of your original claim, I suggest you study the life and beliefs of Benjamin Franklin. Franklin considered himself a Deist in his early life. Nevertheless, throughout his life, his belief in one God was unshakable. In his later life, after years of experience and learning, his religious beliefs modified. He freely admitted that he was unsure of the divinity of Christ. At the same time, he claimed that the religious teachings of Christ were the most profound and most worthy of all religious principles. He prayed regularly, and insisted that strong religious principles were the foundation of great nations and great people. Regardless of what Franklin's religious beliefs may be called, I find them to be "scientific", "objective", "honest", and worthy of respect.

 

[Iolo2]

No, that was not what you claimed! You claimed that America's founders were Deists and tax-evaders. You make sweeping claims that encompass entire groups of human beings. Like most socialists/Marxists, you don't see human beings as "individuals". You see groups like "bankers", "Christians", "Jews", "Whites", "Blacks", "Women", and "Muslims". America's founders taught us many great truths. The importance of the individual is one of those great truths.

If you'd like to test the veracity of your original claim, I suggest you study the life and beliefs of Benjamin Franklin. Franklin considered himself a Deist in his early life. Nevertheless, throughout his life, his belief in one God was unshakable. In his later life, after years of experience and learning, his religious beliefs modified. He freely admitted that he was unsure of the divinity of Christ. At the same time, he claimed that the religious teachings of Christ were the most profound and most worthy of all religious principles. He prayed regularly, and insisted that strong religious principles were the foundation of great nations and great people. Regardless of what Franklin's religious beliefs may be called, I find them to be "scientific", "objective", "honest", and worthy of respect.

You deny that the major founders were Deist tax-evaders? I see human beings as individalas and brainwashed goons as puppets, since you ask.