Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 30, 2025 7:17 pm
Well, there are various ways. The primary one is, of course, what the Bible says. That which is not harmonious with that isn't even potentially from God. (Is. 8:20)
But this is not the subject of current debate. You'll need to start a separate thread if you're interested in that.
What the Bible says is a matter of interpretation of The Bible.
It's not hard. The Bible usually speaks rather plainly.
He who has ears let him hear . Matthew 13:9, Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8).
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 31, 2025 7:32 pm
You're right: it cannot be internal to individuals. If it's only internal, it's the same as a whim. It has no moral force at all, one way or the other.
When even a secularist says, "I'm a good person," what is the right way to understand his claim?
Is he claiming, "I'm a person who has whims?" Surely not, right? But then, what is he claiming? Is he claiming "I'm a person who lives up to the various demands of my culture?" Maybe: but for reasons below, that's not going to be enough either. For one thing, his culture itself can behave immorally. For another, how can you criticize the most hideous human rights abuses, so long as the culture happens to approve of them? And yet even a secularist will do that. So how can he?
So, we must ask, what does the secularist really want us to understand when he says, "I'm a good person?" You'll have to tell me that, because I can't imagine what it can reasonably be.
The Christian cannot reasonably say, "I am a good person". "For there is none righteous, no, not one," as the Bible says. Also, by claiming he is good the Christian would be ignoring the virtue of humility.
So if the Christian says, "I am a good person" he is contradicting his own principles. The secularist -- who according to you has no principles -- cannot (at least) be accused of hypocrisy. He is good according to particular standards -- his own. These standards derive from a variety of sources, but "whimsy" is not one of them, more's the pity.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 31, 2025 7:32 pm
You're right: it cannot be internal to individuals. If it's only internal, it's the same as a whim. It has no moral force at all, one way or the other.
When even a secularist says, "I'm a good person," what is the right way to understand his claim?
Is he claiming, "I'm a person who has whims?" Surely not, right? But then, what is he claiming? Is he claiming "I'm a person who lives up to the various demands of my culture?" Maybe: but for reasons below, that's not going to be enough either. For one thing, his culture itself can behave immorally. For another, how can you criticize the most hideous human rights abuses, so long as the culture happens to approve of them? And yet even a secularist will do that. So how can he?
So, we must ask, what does the secularist really want us to understand when he says, "I'm a good person?" You'll have to tell me that, because I can't imagine what it can reasonably be.
The Christian cannot reasonably say, "I am a good person". "For there is none righteous, no, not one," as the Bible says.
Very good! That's why he doesn't say it.
The secularist -- who according to you has no principles -- cannot (at least) be accused of hypocrisy. He is good according to particular standards -- his own.
Then it means, "I please my own whims."
Pray explain: how can a person who merely pleases his own whims be considered "a good person"?
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 31, 2025 9:30 pm
He who has ears let him hear . Matthew 13:9, Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8).
Exactly right.
It also applies to "shes."
Yes, but what you don't seem to hear is that each of use cannot but originate our separate interpretation from our own learned perspective.
That doesn't follow at all. It's not what Christ was teaching; in fact, you'll find He was teaching the opposite, namely, that there are "perspectives," and even "learned" ones, like the Pharisaic perspective, that was functionally blind to truth.
He who has ears to hear is , in other words, 'woke'.
Not in any modern sense of that half-literate term. But "awakened" to truth? Sure.
Pray explain: how can a person who merely pleases his own whims be considered "a good person"?
Since I've explained it (to no avail) many times, I won't bother doing so again.
Oldest ruse it the book: "I told you that already; now I don't want to say anymore."
No, you didn't. And you can't. It doesn't make sense. In fact, it's the perfect synonym for "solipsist," or perhaps "narcissist" or even "sociopath." And none of these is, by any moral standard I know, "good."
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 01, 2025 7:24 pm Oldest ruse it the book: "I told you that already; now I don't want to say anymore."
No, you didn't. And you can't. It doesn't make sense. In fact, it's the perfect synonym for "solipsist," or perhaps "narcissist" or even "sociopath." And none of these is, by any moral standard I know, "good."
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 01, 2025 12:34 pm
Jesus was a teacher who. like today's school teachers, sought to widen people's understanding .He who has ears to hear is , in other words, 'woke'.
[/b]
Wokies are such a modest, humble lot
Have you SEEN what passes as 'teachers' in the US these days??
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 01, 2025 7:24 pm Oldest ruse it the book: "I told you that already; now I don't want to say anymore."
No, you didn't. And you can't. It doesn't make sense. In fact, it's the perfect synonym for "solipsist," or perhaps "narcissist" or even "sociopath." And none of these is, by any moral standard I know, "good."
That's because you know only one moral standard.
So you're saying that you DO know a way somebody who's like that can be considered "good"? Just how would that be?
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 01, 2025 12:34 pm
Jesus was a teacher who. like today's school teachers, sought to widen people's understanding .He who has ears to hear is , in other words, 'woke'.
[/b]
Wokies are such a modest, humble lot
Have you SEEN what passes as 'teachers' in the US these days??
Not just the US. The same problem is general throughout the West, since Critical Theory took over the faculties of education.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 01, 2025 7:24 pm Oldest ruse it the book: "I told you that already; now I don't want to say anymore."
No, you didn't. And you can't. It doesn't make sense. In fact, it's the perfect synonym for "solipsist," or perhaps "narcissist" or even "sociopath." And none of these is, by any moral standard I know, "good."
That's because you know only one moral standard.
So you're saying that you DO know a way somebody who's like that can be considered "good"? Just how would that be?
I do. It's exactly the same as your method: I use my own standards, derived from a variety of sources. The only difference is that I don't pretend my standards are "objective".
So you're saying that you DO know a way somebody who's like that can be considered "good"? Just how would that be?
I do. It's exactly the same as your method: I use my own standards, derived from a variety of sources.
Oh? So it's now YOU who is the one who only pleases himself? And that makes you a "good" person? But you say you also don't even "pretend that [your] standard is objective"?
I just want to get your story straight. I'd hate to misrepresent it, and at present, it's sounding a little...unconvincing.
Oldest ruse it the book: "I told you that already; now I don't want to say anymore."