Good people and bad people


Marlin1
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am of the belief that there are no good or bad people, only people who do good and bad things.

What are your thoughts?

The scriptures can't seem to make up their mind on the matter.

Christ taught that there are none good but God. We are also taught that this life is a probationary period, and thus judgment of good or bad should be reserved for God at final judgement.

Yet, in Luke 6:45 Christ teaches - "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil..."

Acts 11 - "For he was a good man..." referring to Barnabas.

There are endless contradictions (seeming contradictions) on the matter.

I used to think exactly as you do.... until I met someone truly evil. The person wasn't born that way. But when a person consciously chooses Satan's way and becomes a follow they become evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That may indeed be a problem. Insofar as you are our brother and want or need to express your feelings, viewpoints, and insights, that is indeed bad. But this is a discussion list, not a Priesthood quorum or a therapy group. The nature of conversation is different.

For example, you have stated quite unambiguously that you think it's morally wrong to classify people as "good" and "bad". In a Priesthood quorum or therapy session, we might want to explore that idea, draw out of you why you think that way, gently wonder about alternative possibilities, and so forth. But on a discussion list, it's fodder for, well, discussion. You say, "We should never classify people as 'good' and 'evil', because that's passing judgment on them." Someone else says, "No, you're wrong. It's effectively judging their intent and actions. We must pass such judgments just to live our lives. Otherwise, we cannot distinguish between the thief, the child molester, and the honest man."

That's how discussion lists are. We discuss things.

I don't care where we are, the nature of conversation should always be sensitive of others. Discussion is fine, but we all have boundaries, even on forums.

I have never said that we should not pass judgment. Judge the deed not the person. You can distinguish and protect yourself perfectly well following that rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your logical assessment of what situation? I have never shared with you my situation, I'm not sure how you can disagree with something I have never shared - making it rash.

The situation you generally shared. You were heavily into some form of addiction. You felt that this was a result of people calling you "bad" and that you felt "unloveable".

Thus you have shared a general statement of your situation. I disagree with regards to people calling you "bad" was a problem.

I agree that you felt unloveable, thus from what you shared I can make a logical assessment of what I know to be true myself. I am able to make an assessment according to my experience and knowledge.

If anything is "rash" it is someone telling someone else not to use their personal knowledge and experience, or by telling someone else they cannot feel the way they do, because they don't feel the same way as you do. This is rash.

First, What makes you think that this was a "personal assessment"?

You are on an open forum, sharing your personal views, your personal assessment of why you think it isn't ok to call people "bad" or "good", and why you think there are no "good" people, or "bad" people.

It is your personal assessment. Just as others on here are sharing their personal assessment from what they have experienced.

Second, Who are you to assess me?

I am a person with a God given right to judge for myself. You ask me this rhetorical question, while assessing me at the same time, have you not realized this? While telling me not to assess you, you have been assessing me? You have already made judgments about me.

You don't even know me, and yet you seem to think that you know me better than any professional or bishop that does know my situation.

Nope.

I'm not sure, are you accusing me of being in denial? One does not find healing in denial.

Nope. True.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the internet. You are who we read you as. The blank areas we fill with things we know. This is normally not an issue - as in, most discussions don't care if you're a 12 year old buddhist pretending to be a 70 year old LDS bishop as long as your posts is consistent with what we know are the thoughts and experiences of a 70 year old bishop...

What gets the turmoil in the peaceful ocean is when one states an opinion and we detect the sentiment as being based on some world view that got formed from a non-normal experience and we only get sketchy ideas of what that experience is - so we plug it in with what we know of that experience... like Andennex plugging his relative's addiction experience... and me plugging in what I know of the subject... and that doesn't coincide with what we understand is your world view so it is hard to understand your opinion.

I recognize that it may be hard for you to understand my opinion because I don't feel comfortable sharing my experience, and so you fill in the gaps. That just goes to show how much room for error there is when it comes to judging others. To say I don't understand your point of view is fine (as you did), but for someone to try to tell me that my understanding of the root of my addiction is wrong, without me sharing anything about it is entirely ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care where we are, the nature of conversation should always be sensitive of others. Discussion is fine, but we all have boundaries, even on forums.

Other than being factually untrue -- a surgeon engaged in a delicate operation need not be overly concerned with being sensitive to the feelings of his surgical crew, especially if action must be taken immediately -- your comment ignores the fact that "being sensitive" means different things in different places. Being "sensitive" in an elders quorum or Relief Society meeting is altogether different from being "sensitive" in a Toastmaster's meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anddenex,

How can you disagree that someone calling me bad was a problem? Again, you don't know the situation, I haven't shared. The root of my problem and the situations surrounding it was not a "personal assessment" it was a professional assessment with a spiritual confirmation. By working on that root problem through the atonement I have found peace. It was a problem or I would not have found sobriety. Please read "Healing the Shame that Binds You" by John Bradshaw, you might gain a better understanding of the harm that comes from calling someone bad.

My problem is that you are assessing my addiction, not my actions on this forum. No professional would make such rash conclusions based on such limited information shared on this forum. You are right, I have made assessments about you, I make judgments of your actions, but I will never, ever, ever, claim that you are a bad person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than being factually untrue -- a surgeon engaged in a delicate operation need not be overly concerned with being sensitive to the feelings of his surgical crew, especially if action must be taken immediately -- your comment ignores the fact that "being sensitive" means different things in different places. Being "sensitive" in an elders quorum or Relief Society meeting is altogether different from being "sensitive" in a Toastmaster's meeting.

I think you get my point Vort. Perhaps your logical technicalities blind you to more delicate matters.

Edited by Marlin1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of a conference talk titled, "Beware of the Evil behind the Smiling Eyes."

Excellent and relevant talk - thanks for the link!

“His eyes and disarming smile gave me the impression that he was harmless, so I quickly left him and started to move toward the table. The suspect was now behind me. At that instant, I had the distinct, powerful impression come into my mind: ‘Beware of the evil behind the smiling eyes.’

“I immediately turned back toward the suspect. His hand was in his large front pocket. Instinctively I grabbed his hand and pulled it from his pocket. Only then did I see, clutched in his hand, the semiautomatic pistol ready to fire. A flurry of activity followed, and I disarmed the man.”

Later, in another case, the drug dealer was convicted of murder and boasted that he would have also killed my friend had he not turned around at that very moment.

I notice that nowhere in the talk does anyone advocate for judging a person as evil. I also notice that the guy didn't really need to, in order to take appropriate action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think exactly as you do.... until I met someone truly evil. The person wasn't born that way. But when a person consciously chooses Satan's way and becomes a follow they become evil.

If this person is a son of perdition, I would agree that he is evil. If not, I refuse to group him with such darkness. Not judging someone in no way diminishes their evil actions and choices. It in no way puts us in danger of harm, we can protect ourselves through following the spirit and recognizing evil behavior.

Edited by Marlin1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read "Healing the Shame that Binds You" by John Bradshaw, you might gain a better understanding of the harm that comes from calling someone bad.

Thank you for the invitation. This book isn't going to help me with what I already know. I would agree that if we call a person "bad" who isn't "bad" then yes this is hurtful.

Calling someone "bad" who is "bad" is simply pointing out a factual state of being. I don't need to convince anyone that they are bad, if they are bad, their actions define them.

This book is merely another persons opinion, through their personal experiences. If this book helped you, that is awesome.

My problem is that you are assessing my addiction, not my actions on this forum.

This would be incorrect. I am assessing your statements with the subject of the thread: "Good people and bad people."

I am assessing what you feel to be true, with my personal experience and what I know to be true, by spiritual confirmation.

No professional would make such rash conclusions based on such limited information shared on this forum.

In light of myself making no such conclusions, as pertaining to your addiction, this point is moot. I don't mean to point out the obvious, however, there are "professionals" who actually do make rash decisions all over the place.

This is why there are so many misdiagnosis throughout the world.

You are right, I have made assessments about you, I make judgments of your actions, but I will never, ever, ever, claim that you are a bad person.

I accept your choice, as it is your choice and your choice alone to make.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you get my point Vort. Perhaps your logical technicalities blind you to more delicate matters.

Yes, I think I get your point, too, and I disagree with it. "Being sensitive to others" and "respecting boundaries" is not a blanket, one-size-fits-all panacea. If you get offended at what someone on a discussion board says, it may not be because he was offensive -- EVEN IF that same thing would have been offensive in, say, an elders quorum meeting. The nature of discussion on an internet list is simply different from that of a Church meeting, and the rules and expectations are therefore also different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alert to all LDS.net friends. I have officially prophesied and it has come true.

I previously stated, "I just need to read Vort's statements every day (correction, which Vort so politely pointed out of "everyday" to "every day"), that I would learn a new word.

My prophecy is sure and true. "panacea". I now know a new word today. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where we would diverge in agreement. I don't believe it is that you felt you were bad, that caused you your pain. However, as a result of bad choices, you felt unloveable, and that is the root of the problem.

You did indeed make a rash assessment of the root cause of my addiction. You don't believe that it was my belief that I was bad that caused my pain?! Why do you think I felt unloveable? Let me spell it out for you, it is because I believed that I was bad. As a result of bad choices?! You have no clue.

I really think you might change your mind if you read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to hear a response.

I don't accept your premise. If I say "Avengers is a good movie." that is not a statement that Avengers contains no bad by whatever criteria I am judging it. Or if I say, "This casserole is bad." that does not mean it cannot have good nutritive value. As I disagree with the premise the logic that follows is moot as a point of discussion as it's unlikely to be productive. From what I can see, if one accepts the premise the logic holds, but how much the logic holding out means depends on it's relevance to reality (or perceived relevance):

Premise: All people who wear green are pure evil.

Observation: You wear green.

Conclusion: You are pure evil.

The logic is unassailable, the debate (such as it were) is in the premise.

One thing I'm seeing throughout this conversation is people have very different ideas of what it means to say someone is bad or that someone is good. I don't think, linguistically, that bad and good can only have one restricted meaning, so there isn't anything necessarily problematic about that, but I think this thread is a testament to what happens, and it happens fairly commonly in discussions like this, and that is the tendency to assume a common understanding of the nuances and connotative implications of a term (particularly as applied to various contexts). In my experience such is rarely the case.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think I get your point, too, and I disagree with it. "Being sensitive to others" and "respecting boundaries" is not a blanket, one-size-fits-all panacea. If you get offended at what someone on a discussion board says, it may not be because he was offensive -- EVEN IF that same thing would have been offensive in, say, an elders quorum meeting. The nature of discussion on an internet list is simply different from that of a Church meeting, and the rules and expectations are therefore also different.

I see...the rules are different. Let's see how that argument works upstairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did indeed make a rash assessment of the root cause of my addiction.

This would be incorrect. Not willing to enter into a circular argument.

You don't believe that it was my belief that I was bad that caused my pain?!

This would also be incorrect. I never said you don't believe it yourself. I know you believe it yourself. I would disagree that this is the root problem. I am more inclined, as I have already shared, to believe that the root is that people feel "unloveable", because of their bad choices.

You have no clue.

And this definitely isn't a "rash" statement? Have you come to know me so well, my thoughts, my heart, my personal experiences and personal revelations, that you can make such a statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't accept your premise. If I say "Avengers is a good movie." that is not a statement that Avengers contains no bad by whatever criteria I am judging it. Or if I say, "This casserole is bad." that does not mean it cannot have good nutritive value. As I disagree with the premise the logic that follows is moot as a point of discussion as it's unlikely to be productive. From what I can see, if one accepts the premise the logic holds, but how much the logic holding out means depends on it's relevance to reality (or perceived reality):

Premise: All people who wear green are pure evil.

Observation: You wear green.

Conclusion: You are pure evil.

The logic is unassailable, the debate (such as it were) is in the premise.

One thing I'm seeing throughout this conversation is people have very different ideas of what it means to say someone is bad or that someone is good. I don't think, linguistically, that bad and good can only have one restricted meaning, so there isn't anything necessarily problematic about that, but I think this thread is a testament to what happens, and it happens fairly commonly in discussions like this, and that is the tendency to assume a common understanding of the nuances and connotative implications of a term (particularly as applied to various contexts). In my experience such is rarely the case.

Which premise don't you accept? That there is no good in bad, nor bad in good. You do realize that we are speaking in terms of good and evil right? it is not refutable.

Good and bad, in this case, is not a matter of subjectivity and "perceived reality" We are speaking of judgment of moral being. That is the criteria. It is an objective judgment that only God can make. If it were subjective, we would all be correct in our judgment of others, even though we disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone can please show me the good in judging someone (rather than their actions) as bad, than I might be willing to consider that I am wrong.

If you can't convince me that there is good in it, than I will not partake. What good does it do me, them, or anybody? I can teach my children who to avoid without placing judgment.

I can see harm, but no good.

Edited by Marlin1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which premise don't you accept? That there is no good in bad, nor bad in good. You do realize that we are speaking in terms of good and evil right? it is not refutable.

I disagree that the someone or something which contains bad or good cannot also contain good or bad respectively. Now I was assuming you were speaking in adjectives (that which can be called good cannot contain that which is called bad and that which can be called bad cannot contain that which is called good) but if you mean things more literally then there is an issue with your logic. It is essentially a figure of speech fallacy to take "That man is bad." to be "That man is literally the concept of bad." If you're not engaging in this then there is a non sequitur issue, namely that given that the literal concept of good cannot contain the literal concept of bad (and vice versa) it does not follow that a man cannot contain both.

Good and bad, in this case, is not a matter of subjectivity and "perceived reality"

And Chicago isn't located in the middle of the Atlantic. Of course you didn't say that and I didn't say the above which leaves us in a curious place doesn't it?

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anddenex, you truly have no clue what caused my pain. I don't even know where to begin with you. Bad choices?! You have NO CLUE what choices I have made.

I never said I understood what caused your pain, please don't put words in my mouth so you can feel better about your personal view.

I never said I did have a clue as to what choices you have made.

I am responding to the general statements you have made about addictions, and calling people bad or good.

When someone talks about choices that lead to severe addictions, do you consider these good choices?

I have only addressed your addiction statement, nothing more, nothing less, please don't put words into my mouth I never addressed or alluded to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are? Where did everyone agree that you got to decide what the terms we were using were? Even so, I disagree that the term good cannot be applied to someone or something which contains bad and vice versa. Now I was assuming you were speaking in adjectives (that which can be called good cannot contain that which is called bad and that which can be called bad cannot contain that which is called good) but if you mean things more literally then there is an issue with your logic. Namely you are engaging in a non sequitur. That there is no good in bad, or bad in good, it does not follow that there cannot be both in a man.

[uote]Good and bad, in this case, is not a matter of subjectivity and "perceived reality"

And Chicago isn't located in the middle of the Atlantic. Of course you didn't say that and I didn't say the above which leaves us in a curious place doesn't it?

You are right, bad can be applied to someone who has good in them and vise versa. People do it all the time, that doesn't make it right. That is what is in question here. As I said previously there is a far more accurate way to judge. Judge the deed, not the person. Deeds can be entirely good or bad, people cannot (with a small exception).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said I understood what caused your pain, please don't put words in my mouth so you can feel better about your personal view.

I never said I did have a clue as to what choices you have made.

I am responding to the general statements you have made about addictions, and calling people bad or good.

When someone talks about choices that lead to severe addictions, do you consider these good choices?

I have only addressed your addiction statement, nothing more, nothing less, please don't put words into my mouth I never addressed or alluded to.

You are assuming that my bad choices led to my feelings of being unlovable. What happened was not of my choosing, nor was it a consequence of my bad choices. You can't make an accurate assessment based on "general statements", that would be rash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share