Are people basically good?

[ricechickie]

New Living Translation
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.

he sounds like a whiney, insecure little *****

He sounds like He knows you far better than your denial lets you know yourself.

Trust me, chump, whatever you think you are, you're actually much worse.

Thanks, I appreciate all of it.

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

 

[ricechickie]

If only there was a Nutri-bullet in the garden of eden

Ok, that one caught me by surprise....

 

[Cecilie1200]

New Living Translation
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.

he sounds like a whiney, insecure little *****

He sounds like He knows you far better than your denial lets you know yourself.

Trust me, chump, whatever you think you are, you're actually much worse.

Thanks, I appreciate all of it.

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

 

[ricechickie]

he sounds like a whiney, insecure little *****

He sounds like He knows you far better than your denial lets you know yourself.

Trust me, chump, whatever you think you are, you're actually much worse.

Thanks, I appreciate all of it.

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

Now, if you let imperfections define us as “not good,” then we completely disagree.

I am imperfect. But I am basically good. I strive for good daily.

If God loves us, why should we think any less of ourselves?

 

[Cecilie1200]

He sounds like He knows you far better than your denial lets you know yourself.

Trust me, chump, whatever you think you are, you're actually much worse.

Thanks, I appreciate all of it.

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

 

[deanrd]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Good are people who help children, not separate them from their parents.
Good are people who want healthcare for everyone who don't believe in let them die.
Good are people who want affordable education and don't prey on people's fear and ignorance.
Good are people who aren't racist.

It's pretty easy to figure out who is good and who isn't. And even figure out what political party they belong to.

 

[ricechickie]

Thanks, I appreciate all of it.

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

 

[ding]

I think you are reading successful too narrowly. Especially since my reference was using peace and harmony versus disorder and chaos. It’s almost like you are going out of your way to look for reasons to not believe that there are good and bad behaviors.

I specifically used the phrase “people who are seen as successful “ in order to avoid defining it too narrowly.

The point is that most people define success narrowly, based on the most superficial criteria.

How do you measure success?

Think of it this way, two people who are caring, thankful and humble will always have a more successful relationship than two people who are cruel, thankless and selfish.

Success is a broad measure but we all know what it looks like in reference to failure. It can be measured many ways, but the contrast to its antithesis is always stark.

I suppose it depends on what one’s goal is, as to whether one is successful or has failed.

Sure, if your goal is to get divorced than acting selfishly and cheating on your spouse would be the way to go. However, if your goal is to have a happy and long lived marriage then being faithful and selfless is the better choice.

But most people tend to view success and failure in the traditional sense. Where success is defined as good and failure is defined as bad.

You were the one who said my definition of success might have been too narrow. Now you seem to want to narrow it.

Consider this example:

A woman with children works hard, makes money, and gets promoted. The promotion involves more hours, more travel, but a hefty raise. The family will be well off, but everyone else will feel the strain and have to sacrifice time and energy to make up for her absence.

If her goal is to make as much money as she can, she takes the job and is successful.

If her goal is being there for her kids’ lives as much as possible, then she doesn’t take the job, and she’s successful.

Those who share her values and goals will applaud her decision. Those who don’t may even go so far as to call her a failure.

Not really what I was talking about now is it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He sounds like He knows you far better than your denial lets you know yourself.

Trust me, chump, whatever you think you are, you're actually much worse.

Thanks, I appreciate all of it.

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

SOMETIMES it's action. I doubt very much if you ALWAYS do the right thing.

And I agree that if goodness was innate, it would come automatically. If you recall, YOU were the one arguing that it WAS innate; I've been saying all along that it's not.

 

[ricechickie]

I specifically used the phrase “people who are seen as successful “ in order to avoid defining it too narrowly.

The point is that most people define success narrowly, based on the most superficial criteria.

How do you measure success?

Think of it this way, two people who are caring, thankful and humble will always have a more successful relationship than two people who are cruel, thankless and selfish.

Success is a broad measure but we all know what it looks like in reference to failure. It can be measured many ways, but the contrast to its antithesis is always stark.

I suppose it depends on what one’s goal is, as to whether one is successful or has failed.

Sure, if your goal is to get divorced than acting selfishly and cheating on your spouse would be the way to go. However, if your goal is to have a happy and long lived marriage then being faithful and selfless is the better choice.

But most people tend to view success and failure in the traditional sense. Where success is defined as good and failure is defined as bad.

You were the one who said my definition of success might have been too narrow. Now you seem to want to narrow it.

Consider this example:

A woman with children works hard, makes money, and gets promoted. The promotion involves more hours, more travel, but a hefty raise. The family will be well off, but everyone else will feel the strain and have to sacrifice time and energy to make up for her absence.

If her goal is to make as much money as she can, she takes the job and is successful.

If her goal is being there for her kids’ lives as much as possible, then she doesn’t take the job, and she’s successful.

Those who share her values and goals will applaud her decision. Those who don’t may even go so far as to call her a failure.

Not really what I was talking about now is it.

So your examples “work” and mine don’t.

Quelle surprise.

 

[ricechickie]

Thanks, I appreciate all of it.

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

 

[ricechickie]

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

SOMETIMES it's action. I doubt very much if you ALWAYS do the right thing.

And I agree that if goodness was innate, it would come automatically. If you recall, YOU were the one arguing that it WAS innate; I've been saying all along that it's not.

I scrolled through several pages to find that I did, indeed, say goodness is innate. I meant it as “natural” or “inborn” not “instinctive” or “automatic.”

Wanting to do good is like the sex drive. Wanting sex is very natural and normal, somewhat instinctual, but you have to decide to act. People can be celibate despite the natural sex drive, and people can do evil despite the natural desire to do good.

Usually, those natural behaviors are thwarted with twisted upbringing, unfortunately.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

 

[ricechickie]

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

SOMETIMES it's action. I doubt very much if you ALWAYS do the right thing.

And I agree that if goodness was innate, it would come automatically. If you recall, YOU were the one arguing that it WAS innate; I've been saying all along that it's not.

I scrolled through several pages to find that I did, indeed, say goodness is innate. I meant it as “natural” or “inborn” not “instinctive” or “automatic.”

Wanting to do good is like the sex drive. Wanting sex is very natural and normal, somewhat instinctual, but you have to decide to act. People can be celibate despite the natural sex drive, and people can do evil despite the natural desire to do good.

Usually, those natural behaviors are thwarted with twisted upbringing, unfortunately.

To continue your analogy, the difference between wanting to be good and actually being good is akin to the difference between wanting to be sexually active and actually being sexually active: just because you want to achieve something doesn't mean you actually HAVE.

You really need to come to terms with the fact that the desire for evil lives inside of us right next to the desire to be good, and it's very often more appealing to us.

 

[OldLady]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Man knows right from wrong; good from evil. He is born a moral being and is hard wired for morality.

Man knows right from wrong so much so that when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. That's how much man knows right from wrong and prefers right over wrong.

He is born a moral being and is hard wired for morality.
You got some research bearing that out?