Show Summary, From Chris and Nate

Chris says: We are born with evil (and good) and the Truth will save us.

Nate says: We are born basically good and understanding a more universal truth will lead to peace and happiness.



- - Show Site: http://www.thechristianandtheatheist.org/

Chris,

I wish you would have prepared a bit more for this show. I was disappointed with the lack of ability to articulate your positions clearly. Nate's questions were poking some serious holes in your understanding of the Gospel.

Looking forward to the next show and better preparation.

Cheers,

Brian

Hello,

I felt that this "Epsisode" was a bit confusing and felt it didn't really reach as many conclusions as other conversations. Though this is a very cavernous subject that is difficult to explore, I agree with Brian that Chris could have been a bit more prepared, but I would have liked to see Brian offer some thoughts in addition to pointing out the problem

One part I liked was when Chris asked Nate, "What is good?" I think this is where a lot of division comes. Is "good" an absolute term? Can it be measured in degrees? Is one person more "good" than another person? Is "good" determined by a person actions? Motivations? Or is it a constant state that defines one's character?

From a Christian/Eternity/Spiritual perspective, all that is irrelevant. If the main thing in life is to know God through Jesus, which comes from, like Chris said, "knowing the truth" (or in other words, coming to a full knowledge and acceptance of the fact that Jesus saved us by His grace), then we need to look at the issue of good/evil from God's perspective. We need to look at it from a different angle. There is an issue more imporant than defining "good". It's the issue that the Bible says there is no person that is "good", not even one. The requirements to get into heaven are to be a "good" person, or completely without evil. If no one is good, that is why we need Jesus to get into Heaven. Jesus is the only man who was without evil and we get to use his perfection to get into Heaven.

So, in the light of salvation, it doesn't matter to what degree of "goodness" you think you maintain. The fact is, if any person were as "good" as he could possibly be, what lasting benefit would it offer him if he were to not make it to Heaven?

In my limited theological knowledge, I beleive that I cannot do anything good apart from God. Nate asked "Do you need Christianity to be a "good" person?" I believe YES you do (as God defines "good".

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Ben

First off, many happy regards on Chris's new arrival (yeah, like he did all the work )!

I think this topic deserves another show. It's a pretty rich vein (imho). Questions of how we weigh right/wrong issues, how we even approach them, are great for discussion. Another show topic idea "how do we determine what is right/wrong?" What values do the base our judgements on? Holy text? But many people have very different views of what that text values. How do we deal with that? Does it come down to our individual guidance? Like I said, it can become convoluted very quickly.

Maybe you can do two GarageBand recordings back to back? Or grab a copy of Audacity (is free!).

Barron

Chris, more research would have definately been a good idea but oh well. Some food for thought guys... (This is how I view scripture, I could certainly be wrong!)

People are not necessarily born 'evil' but they are born with the sinful nature. (That is, a tendancy towards sin that no one has ever overcome on their own.) A person becomes sinful once they commit that first act of sin. Since all of mankind is made in the image of God, then no one is totally evil. As Paul said in Romans, some people who did not have "the Law" (scripture) follow their own law. Thus they can do good things, but in the Christian viewpoint since God is the source of good and we fall short of the glory of God we cannot be Good.

We would be left without hope, except that God promised to send his Holy Spirit to help those who accept Christ. So with the help of God we can become good! (See Romans

This was definitely a lighter show than usual, which I think is fine. Its nice to hear something other than just a heavy subject matter. I have to agree with the earlier post, the question you asked about 'What is good?' is a great question!

Just listening to this one, here are my thoughts on it (I may have repeated/reinerated some things that were said on here, I apologize for whatever might have been said to that extent in advance):

Infant baptism is somewhat illegitimate because the infant doesn't have much say in the matter, as God gives free will to those who follow Him (God doesn't force himself on anyone). It is not one who is baptised, but rather, one who asks for forgiveness and whom God sheds his Grace on who is cleansed.

Yes, it is possible to be completely evil. many high-ranking wiccians and satanists don't care that they are evil once they find out that they are so when it's revealed to them. (Anton LaVey once said that it doesn't matter what kind of magic one uses, it's all evil no matter how it looks).

When it comes to following Jesus, it's not whether we are "good or bad", per se, but rather that we DO follow Jesus. We ourselves aren't righteous enough nor ever will be righteous enough to attain the favor of God by us trying to prove to him that we deserve it (that's why it's called grace.) The bible states that our own righteousness is basically the same as "filthy rags" (look that up in greek.... basically it equates to a used tampon). There are millions of what humanity defines as good people, but being "good" for the sake of God's favor doesn't necessarily equate to forgiveness, because as it was said on the program, it's not about US, it's about God.

On to faith - Faith births action. It also dictates our decisions. I'd like to go even further than paul by saying that faith without works is not only dead - it's not even faith, but knowlege about something.

on to truth - Truth is dependent on its scope....

[QUOTE]From [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth]wikipedia.org[/URL] on truths:

Subjective truths are those with which we are most intimately acquainted. That I like broccoli or that I have a pain in my foot are both subjectively true. Metaphysical subjectivism holds that all we have are such truths. That is, that all we can know about are, one way or another, our own subjective experiences. This view does not necessarily reject realism. But at the least it claims that we cannot have direct knowledge of the real world.

In contrast, objective truths are supposed in some way to be independent of our subjective beliefs and tastes. Such truths would subsist not in the mind but in the external object.

Relative truths are statements or propositions that are true only relative to some standard or convention or point-of-view. Usually the standard cited is the tenets of one's own culture. Everyone agrees that the truth or falsity of some statements is relative: That the fork is to the left of the spoon depends on where one stands. But Relativism is the doctrine that all truths within a particular domain (say, morality or aesthetics) are of this form, and Relativism entails that what is true varies across cultures and eras. For example, Moral relativism is the view that moral truths are socially determined. Some logical issues about Relativism are taken up in the article on the relativist fallacy.

Relative truths can be contrasted with absolute truths. The latter are statements or propositions that are taken to be true for all cultures and all eras. For example, for Muslims "God is great" expresses an absolute truth; for the microeconomist, that the laws of supply and demand determine the value of any consumable in a market economy is true in all situations; for the Kantian, "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" forms an absolute moral truth. They are statements that are often claimed to emanate from the very nature of the universe, God, human nature, or some other ultimate essence or transcendental signifier.

Absolutism in a particular domain of thought is the view that all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. For example, Moral absolutism is the view that moral claims such as "Abortion is wrong" or "Charity is good" are either true for all people in all times or false for all people in all times.
[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind that Jesus stated that he is the ONLY way to get to God. That definately sounds like an absolute statement.

Hopefully some of this will help.

If we identify that a god is the only way to be good, and that gods truth lies in religious doctrine, then this truth should correlate with the universe.

What happens when it doesn't? Is a Theist open to the question that the natural universe runs a different course then a belief in a religion/god.

Chad

Could you please give a specific example of when, in fact, the natural universe runs a different course?

[FONT=Courier][SIZE=7][COLOR=orange][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] We are born with empathy that we must extend planetarily as Paul Kurtz admonishes us to do. One act of wrong doing does not make us sinners, that is the fallacies of overgeneralizing and all or nothing.Here we should follow the admonition of Albert Ellis to accept ourselves, others and the cosmos as is,trying to improve where possible.And to maintain that as we go up the line of authority, we err more grievoulsy, is wrong.Thus grieving against God does not merit Hell.The notion of Atonement is wrong: Judaism no longer accepts animal sacrifice, nor should any other relgion-human is animal sacrifice.The whole scheme of salvation is thus flawed and inhuman! Contrition is in order.What counts is getting peope to do better morally, not condemn them to Hell!

It is the divine protection rackett that demands one to be born again! We are not born with a tendency to do wrong as science shows. It is up to our guardians and to ourselves to develop more fully our goodness. Satan would be an unjust irritant that a just god would not let operate in the first place. I have no "mustabatory"need for God whatsoever and I find the word vacuous.I ifind no hardship not having God. I cannot imagine a god and that is all that God is- imaginary!