A discussion about "goodness" (for lack of a better term)

Henry, I don't know where you get the idea that you know what other people think and they don't. Don't you see the disrespect not to mention likelihood of error in that kind of mind reading? Where is the harm is asking someone what they believe and accepting it at face value as their belief? When you make yourself the expert on what other people believe, you are really creating a drama in which you play all the parts.

 

Hank,

You and I have had a discussion previously about what constitutes "faith" and I don't think we ever resolved it nor do I expect we ever will. You seem absolutely determined to try and jam everything into a "faith" box. I can only assume that this is because your own faith is so strong you really can't comprehend that there is any other way to view the world. Reality check - there is. The HUGE difference is that some people don't believe in God. That doesn't mean we "deny" God, we just don't believe in him. THEREFORE we have means other than God to discuss, explain, theorise about the world. We can even read the Scriptures but we just don't believe they are the word of God. To us they are the words (often quite insightful and meaningful) of other human beings.

So - in a nutshell. If we don't believe in God we don't have "faith". All these other things - eg consequentialism are not things one has "faith" in. One simply finds them interesting, reasonable, illuminating, useful - or not.

 

If consequentialism is valid, from where does it derive its validity?

 

This particular line of discussion is interesting to me. So I pursue it. I see a theory that is not tangible, has no form, is dreamed up in the mind of man, is given certain credence to help describe certain aspects of the human condition. And those same people who give credence to this intangible theory, and ones like it, which have no proof or evidence, say that they will not consider the plausibility of God, and use as a reason that God is purely an idea, a theory, from the mind of man is completely intangible, and cannot be proved. So I see no difference here. I find that interesting. And therefore I bring up the point.

Now I expect that you should be able to understand the point here. If you do, without trying to tell me that I am just wrong in my analysis of this, because I know what I am saying and I know that it is a valid comparison, I am interested to know why and how, you can easily consider as plausible the one theory, for which there is no proof or evidence, but cannot consider the plausibility of the other that is just like it except in its content.

Again, I find this a fascinating subject to explore. So I pursue it. The Giants and Phillies are tied 1-1.

 

I disagree, as you might imagine I would. Because only by considering the position of others on a subject matter can we truly understand our own. I expect that the validity of my observation means something to you that you had not considered. So you have learned something about your own position. It does not mean that you change your position, but you do emerge with a larger view of the parameters that govern your position. And you find yourself led to a point where you have to admit the validity of my observation, or act as if you can't understand because I am so obtuse, or decline to continue and walk away saying the to go further is a fruitless endeavor because I am set in my ways. I presume you have chosen the third alternative. Either way, it is bed time here, so that's where I'm heading.

Goodnight.

 

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows” (Epictetus, circa ad 100)

 

On one hand, you say that I am not willing to learn from you, and so you withdraw. On the other hand, in the past you tell me that you prefer to be wrong so that you can learn from your mistakes. So are those who believe what you say destined to learn the hard way as well, learning from the same mistakes you make? Sounds like it. And if I am not willing to learn from you, if that really is the case, would anyone in their right mind, knowing your affinity for being wrong, be any different?

 

I learned one thing. If you go away for a week and come back and read these kinds of threads, it's embarrassing to see you are a part of them. At least it was for me. The arguments get really pathetic.

 

Welcome back!

 

Are you the devil trying to lure me back to this sinful practice for idle hands?

 

Looks like it worked!

 

Lying to people. Wow, you hit the motherload with this topic Wino. Good and bad, truth or lies, one's belief over one's actions. Consequence is one word, one action, one meaning. The bible is full of different words, meanings, actions, lies, truths etc, etc.

How/why are we comparing one word to the bible? Or an entire belief system? You keep harping on it like it's gonna prove some huge truth about the bible and all it's teachings (sorry, that was to you Hank). You're asking for help from people whom you don't want help from at all. You want to use their words to prove yours. I for one believe you Hank. I believe you are one of most biblical people I've ever met. I believe you bring everything back to the fact that you have the bible to back you up. You're right, you do. What in the world does it have to do with one word which your equating with the entire way of looking at life?

Give the bible a little more credit than that, please? It's a great book to live by.

As to whether this man in the book was good or not. I can only speak from my own small experiences with life - I'd rather be told the truth though the truth may cause great pain. In lying about who he was, he was hurting someone on a deeper level than I've ever been hurt - himself.