(June 7, 2013 at 11:27 am)John V Wrote: By these definitions, a person such as your mother is neither good nor evil. She's not good, as by voting against gay rights she's not avoiding causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person, and not trying to alleviate such harm.

Alright, fine. Let me tweak one thing.

Good person = Someone that avoids intentionally causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person for no other reason than to cause mental, physical, or financial harm but tries to alleviate such harm if it occurs.

So she's a good person committing an evil act.

Please explain what point I supposedly missed.

(June 7, 2013 at 11:47 am)Rahul Wrote: Alright, fine. Let me tweak one thing.

Good person = Someone that avoids intentionally causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person for no other reason than to cause mental, physical, or financial harm but tries to alleviate such harm if it occurs.

So she's a good person committing an evil act.

No, as she's not trying to alleviate harm that occurs.

People do bad things because of greed, jealousy, pride, uncontrolled anger and laziness.

In this PC world we never call a person by their action, but highlight the action of that person as either good or bad.

(June 7, 2013 at 12:01 pm)John V Wrote: No, as she's not trying to alleviate harm that occurs.

Not necessarily THAT harm. But my mother does go out of her way to alleviate harm happening to others.

Obviously, no one person can even identify, much less actively work on alleviating all harm that is occuring on this planet.

I'm not doing anything for the starving kids in Africa. That doesn't mean I'm not good. It just means I'm not all powerful. Donating food to a food bank, or donating blood in a blood drive makes you good.

Not giving Tumbooku in Nigeria a helping hand in learning how to read and write doesn't mean I'm not good. I'm depending on there being more than just me to help those they can.

Giving the bum on the side of the road a buck. That's good. Volunteering at your local hospice to visit with terminally ill patients is good. Not helping stop the sex trafficking occuring in Nepal is just something I'm not willing to throw everything in my life I have here in America away to assist those already working on that issue over there.

(June 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm)Rahul Wrote: Not necessarily THAT harm. But my mother does go out of her way to alleviate harm happening to others.

Obviously, no one person can even identify, much less actively work on alleviating all harm that is occuring on this planet.

I'm not doing anything for the starving kids in Africa. That doesn't mean I'm not good. It just means I'm not all powerful. Donating food to a food bank, or donating blood in a blood drive makes you good.

Not giving Tumbooku in Nigeria a helping hand in learning how to read and write doesn't mean I'm not good. I'm depending on there being more than just me to help those they can.

Giving the bum on the side of the road a buck. That's good. Volunteering at your local hospice to visit with terminally ill patients is good. Not helping stop the sex trafficking occuring in Nepal is just something I'm not willing to throw everything in my life I have here in America away to assist those already working on that issue over there.

OK, you need to further detail your definitions.

Quote:Ok you two, let's look at America where God is being kicked out at every turn.

So your god is such a fucking pussy that he can be "kicked out" of anything? What is he? Passive-aggressive?

Some fucking god you have there, G-C. Why...he sounds like a very neurotic human.

(June 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm)John V Wrote: OK, you need to further detail your definitions.

No I don't.

Good person = Someone that avoids intentionally causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person for no other reason than to cause mental, physical, or financial harm but tries to alleviate such harm if it occurs.

I didn't put "tries to alleviate ALL harm wherever it exists".

That would mean practically no human that ever existed, if any, was ever a good person.

Moreso, in the case of equal rights for homosexuals, my mother would not identify restricting their right to be married as a harm.

My mother is of the belief that Jesus/God loves us, and anything he tells us is wrong, like homosexuality, is him trying to prevent us from causing our own harm and misery.

Based on this belief, since God is against us being in homosexual relationships, homosexual relationships must be harmful to the participants. To publically condone homosexual marriage would be the same as encouraging someone to do something that is harmful to themselves and society for a whole.

In her eyes, doing everything in her power to dissuade homosexuals from being homosexuals would actually be a good act.

Like telling your kid not to touch the hot stovetop.

The current definitions will stand for the time being.

(June 7, 2013 at 8:46 am)John V Wrote: Since you're whining about lack of response:

(June 6, 2013 at 2:15 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: The theists in this thread are illustrating exactly the mindset which allows the RCC to have no remorse about covering up the actions of pedophile priests.

How so? Is it accurate to lump all theists together? All I've done is ask for accuracy rather than speculation. As I see it, if the assertion that priests commit child sexual abuse at a higher frequency than the general population, then OP's question as to why that is, is valid and is something the RCC should explore. If that assertion is incorrect, then there's no reason to explore that question. Is this unreasonable of me? How does this mindset of desiring facts rather than hysteria allow the RCC to have no remorse? I'm a father and have no desire to exonerate the RCC in this matter. I didn't initially reply because my first thought was "Fuck you for lumping me in with this," but that didn't seem productive.

Quote:ANY percentage of active pedophiles is unacceptable in an institution proclaiming to be the bastion of objective morality.

No, any percentage of active pedophiles is unacceptable in any institution where they'll have contact with children.

I stand by what I said.

(June 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Rahul Wrote: No I don't.

Good person = Someone that avoids intentionally causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person for no other reason than to cause mental, physical, or financial harm but tries to alleviate such harm if it occurs.

I didn't put "tries to alleviate ALL harm wherever it exists".

That would mean practically no human that ever existed, if any, was ever a good person.

Yep. More realistically, should one be expected to try to alleviate all harm within one's means? For instance suppose someone writes a $30 check to charity once a month, but spends $50 every weekend at the bars? Good or evil?

There's also a problem in the opposite direction. Is anyone who ever tried to alleviate any harm a good person? In that case, practically everyone is a good person.

Quote:Moreso, in the case of equal rights for homosexuals, my mother would not identify restricting their right to be married as a harm.

My mother is of the belief that Jesus/God loves us, and anything he tells us is wrong, like homosexuality, is him trying to prevent us from causing our own harm and misery.

Based on this belief, since God is against us being in homosexual relationships, homosexual relationships must be harmful to the participants. To publically condone homosexual marriage would be the same as encouraging someone to do something that is harmful to themselves and society for a whole.

In her eyes, doing everything in her power to dissuade homosexuals from being homosexuals would actually be a good act.

Like telling your kid not to touch the hot stovetop.

Yep, that's another problem I was going to get to. A doctor who prescribes chemotherapy is causing harm, but in the hope of an ultimately beneficial outcome. Is this the same as your mother? If not, why not?