Good people and bad people


Marlin1
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 primarily is a linguistic issue assuming the ultimate problem is how people go about judging. That is, one can use, "That's a bad man." and "That is a man that does bad things." to express the same underlying thought process. While I can appreciate that it can communicate a nuance that may not be part of the thought process (or not communicate one that is) it takes us back to my original comments about people assuming a commonality of definitions and connotations, an assumption that in my experience is often wrong.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That primarily is a linguistic issue assuming the ultimate problem is how people go about judging. That is, one can use, "That's a bad man." and "That is a man that does bad things." to express the same underlying thought process. While I can appreciate that it can communicate an nuance that may not be part of the thought process (or not communicate one that is) it takes us back to my original comments about people assuming a commonality of definitions and connotations, an assumption that in my experience is often wrong.

You make a good point on linguistics. The nuances in this case can have heavy consequences for both them and us, so we should perhaps be a little more careful in our wording in regards to other peoples beings. The words perhaps are not as damaging as the underlying perspective of another's being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good point on linguistics. The nuances in this case can have heavy consequences for both them and us, so we should perhaps be a little more careful in our wording in regards to other peoples beings. The words perhaps are not as damaging as the underlying perspective of another's being.

As a practical matter such wording only matters in the context of addressing someone else. If it's an internal or hypothetical communication any inartfulness isn't much of an issue if at all. Even saying, "You are a person who does bad things." is inartful if it's used for personal communication or correction.

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.

Some terrorists are bad. It's okay to describe them as bad. Because, when we realize that, then we realize that going to war against these terrorists will require a different kind of warfare... because, if it's just their actions that are bad and that they're inherently good, then you can reason with these people, engage in diplomacy, cripple them with sanctions if you have to. Unfortunately, these are not good people with bad actions. These are bad people. So that, "convince them to do good" is a losing proposition and if you have to go to war to defend yourself against these people, you have to be ready to die for what you believe in because they are ready to die for theirs.

If you notice, I didn't use the word judgement. You and I have a different use of the word. Also, you and I may have a different understanding of the word BAD.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a practical matter such wording only matters in the context of addressing someone else. If it's an internal or hypothetical communication any inartfulness isn't much of an issue if at all. Even saying, "You are a person who does bad things." is inartful if it's used for personal communication or correction.

I don't know what you mean by inartful, can you explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

In a previous post, I am quoting your statement:

I realize that you don't know me. In this particular area I do have personal experience. I have been through the hell of addiction. Only recently has the Lord shown me that at the core of my addiction is the belief that I am bad and unloveable.

Then this begs the question, "Why would you feel unloveable or bad, unless you had made decision which were bad?" I don't know many people who call a person "bad" unless they have overtly made decisions which are bad.

It appears from your statements that your feelings of being unloveable were a result of bad choices, and what other had said to you.

You definitely over use the word "rash".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some terrorists are bad. It's okay to describe them as bad. Because, when we realize that, then we realize that going to war against these terrorists will require a different kind of warfare... because, if it's just their actions that are bad and that they're inherently good, then you can reason with these people, engage in diplomacy, cripple them with sanctions if you have to. Unfortunately, these are not good people with bad actions. These are bad people. So that, "convince them to do good" is a losing proposition and if you have to go to war to defend yourself against these people, you have to be ready to die for what you believe in because they are ready to die for theirs.

If you notice, I didn't use the word judgement. You and I have a different use of the word. Also, you and I have a different understanding of the word BAD.

I have argued that people are neither good nor bad. I never said they are good people that do bad things. I can view my enemy as deceived, lost, blind, etc. leading them to do evil acts. I can and will protect my family and country in war against evil powers and principles, and people who are blinded by the deceit of power and false principles. That mindset of viewing your enemy as bad has fostered racism and prejudice with almost every nation we have been at war with. It fosters hate and prejudice. Even in war we are taught to love our enemies, to even pray for them. If these people are truly evil, I cannot love them as Christ taught, I try not to love evil. Don't get me wrong, I will kill any man that is a threat to my life and liberty when at war or self-defense.

Again, I can protect myself, my family, and my country without judging another man's being.

I have explained that bad to me means evil.

Edited by Marlin1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a previous post, I am quoting your statement:

Then this begs the question, "Why would you feel unloveable or bad, unless you had made decision which were bad?" I don't know many people who call a person "bad" unless they have overtly made decisions which are bad.

It appears from your statements that your feelings of being unloveable were a result of bad choices, and what other had said to you.

You definitely over use the word "rash".

To answer your question as to why, would require me to share my experience with you. That is something I am not going to do. Any child psychologist can explain to you how a child can feel unlovable without making bad decisions. Not to mention, should a child ever be called "bad" when Christ calls them good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question as to why, would require me to share my experience with you. That is something I am not going to do. Any child psychologist can explain to you how a child can feel unlovable without making bad decisions. Not to mention, should a child ever be called "bad" when Christ calls them good?

No one was speaking about calling a child "bad", so this point is moot also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have argued that people are neither good nor bad. I never said they are good people that do bad things. I can view my enemy as deceived, lost, blind, etc. leading them to do evil acts. I can and will protect my family and country in war against evil powers and principles, and people who are blinded by the deceit of power and false principles. That mindset of viewing your enemy as bad has fostered racism and prejudice with almost every nation we have been at war with. It fosters hate and prejudice. Even in war we are taught to love our enemies, to even pray for them. If these people are truly evil, I cannot love them as Christ taught, I try not to love evil. Don't get me wrong, I will kill any man that is a threat to my life and liberty when at war or self-defense.

Again, I can protect myself, my family, and my country without judging another man's being.

I have explained that bad to me means evil.

So, instead of calling a nation or enemy bad, it is ok to call label them as "deceived, lost, blind, etc..."?

The logic being presented here is that if a person supplants one labeling term over another label term (i.e. bad verses blind, deceived, or lost), that this won't foster or cause any wars, hate, prejudice, or any turmoil between nations?

EDIT: This will be my final post in this section. I am glad to hear how you have been able to overcome, and find peace in your heart. Best wishes in your current endeavors.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also worked as a youth counselor for juvenile delinquents for several years.

I don’t think there is anyone on this board that hasn’t been misjudged at some point in their life. I know I have. I think we need to be careful of labels. I also believe we are commanded to judge, and to judge with righteous judgment. We learn that with the same judgment we give others we will be judged. So we need to be careful. I think there are times when using the label ‘good’ and ‘bad’ when it comes to a person is perfectly acceptable. …just my thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by inartful, can you explain.

Not careful/skillful in one's wording. I used the wrong prefix though, looking at Merriam-Webster it looks like I should have used unartful.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have argued that people are neither good nor bad. I never said they are good people that do bad things. I can view my enemy as deceived, lost, blind, etc. leading them to do evil acts. I can and will protect my family and country in war against evil powers and principles, and people who are blinded by the deceit of power and false principles. That mindset of viewing your enemy as bad has fostered racism and prejudice with almost every nation we have been at war with. It fosters hate and prejudice. Even in war we are taught to love our enemies, to even pray for them. If these people are truly evil, I cannot love them as Christ taught, I try not to love evil. Don't get me wrong, I will kill any man that is a threat to my life and liberty when at war or self-defense.

Again, I can protect myself, my family, and my country without judging another man's being.

I have explained that bad to me means evil.

And that's why I say you and I have a different use of the word BAD. BAD is merely a description. It does not indicate an action. For example, just because I describe the leader of the Abu Sayyaf as bad does not mean that I am going to "foster racism". Nor does it imply that I am incapable of loving him. That's what YOU do when you describe someone as BAD. That's not what I DO. To me, describing the leader of Abbu Sayyaf as bad indicates that there are things I need to do to protect myself and my country against these people. Other people have their own way of acting on their recognition of bad people which is different from you and I. Avoiding negative action does not change the reality that the leader of Abu Sayyaf is bad.

Make sense?

So, if your definition of the word BAD are those who are not worthy of love, then the answer is - there is NOBODY, not a single person ever born on this earth from the time of Adam to the end of the world who is bad. But, that's not how I use the word bad or evil for that matter.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, instead of calling a nation or enemy bad, it is ok to call label them as "deceived, lost, blind, etc..."?

The logic being presented here is that if a person supplants one labeling term over another label term (i.e. bad verses blind, deceived, or lost), that this won't foster or cause any wars, hate, prejudice, or any turmoil between nations?

EDIT: This will be my final post in this section. I am glad to hear how you have been able to overcome, and find peace in your heart. Best wishes in your current endeavors.

Ya, I'm about burnt out as well. Thanks for your wishes. I apologize if I have been passionate to the point of being sarcastic and offensive.

Just to make my point clear. Our enemies still have their agency, so wars would not cease if we stopped viewing them as evil. That is not my claim.

Imagine, however, if terrorist never viewed us as evil beings, and instead viewed us as lost or deceived. Perhaps the word terrorist would have never existed. Instead of sending bombs, perhaps diplomats or missionaries.

My claim is that there is no good in calling, or even perceiving them as bad. It only fosters more evil.

Terrorists are deceived, they are not evil. They do not believe that they are fighting Satan's battle. They believe that they are on the Lord's side. They are fighting for their God, that is what makes them so dangerous. Truly evil beings (sons of perdition) are not deceived , they know what they have denied. Truly evil beings are not fighting agains a perceived evil as terrorists are, they are fighting against good.

My point is that we don't need to perceive another person as evil or bad in order to protect ourselves.

There are no good fruits in judging another man's being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorists are deceived, they are not evil. They do not believe that they are fighting Satan's battle. They believe that they are on the Lord's side.

True, but again, non sequitur. The fact that someone convinces himself that he is justified in his evil does not magically make him un-evil. Satan himself believed he was justified in seeking to usurp the Father's glory, yet he is still called Perdition, being forever lost, and is the personification of evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's why I say you and I have a different use of the word BAD. BAD is merely a description. It does not indicate an action. For example, just because I describe the leader of the Abu Sayyaf as bad does not mean that I am going to "foster racism". Nor does it imply that I am incapable of loving him. That's what YOU do when you describe someone as BAD. That's not what I DO. To me, describing the leader of Abbu Sayyaf as bad indicates that there are things I need to do to protect myself and my country against these people. Other people have their own way of acting on their recognition of bad people which is different from you and I. Avoiding negative action does not change the reality that the leader of Abu Sayyaf is bad.

Make sense?

So, if your definition of the word BAD are those who are not worthy of love, then the answer is - there is NOBODY, not a single person ever born on this earth from the time of Adam to the end of the world who is bad. But, that's not how I use the word bad or evil for that matter.

You might not use the word BAD that way, but others do. There is potential for someone to begin to believe that they are bad if they hear it enough, even if you are not using it in the way that they understood it. That is one reason why we should exercise caution with the use of our words, even if we are not truly judging other's beings.

I perceive Abu Sayyaf the same way you do it sounds like. I don't think you are commenting about his being so much as you are judging his doing. His being is not, and cannot be evil until God places judgment on him of evil. Judgment is a perspective of heart more than a choice of words. There is a difference in perspective which can have a profound effect on our outlook and actions toward others in a positive or negative way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last ditch effort: I doubt you'll actually listen, and might not even be capable of listening, but Im a sucker for the underdog.

Old Joke : How does an addict change a lightbulb? By standing still... While the world revolves around them.

1) You asked an incredibly broad question... When it appears you actually had a very narrow focus:

Are recovering addicts, who did bad things in the past, who are now doing good things able to be defined as good people or bad people on the basis of this actions?

Which would receive an incredibly different series of responses.

And then also went on to act as if, even in that narrow scope, no one else has any familiarity with active/recovering addiction (ahem, case in point: how an addict REACTS to xyz being the issue in play... Aka feeling unloveable is the REACTION to the stimulus of being called bad. WHY they react that way is a different kettle of fish. Point being its not being called bad that creates an addict. Being called good/pretty/competent/etc. can ALL create the pain/pressure/etc when seen through an addictive lens... Is probably some of the most basic doctrine in addiction & recovery. The stimulus matters not whether its positive, neutral, or negative. Blame shifting and failure to take responsibility is active addiction/relapse thinking).

2) In addition to that VERY narrow focus (recovering addicts), you've been trying to make that answer, (which fits a very NARROW set of variables, because there are exceptions to every group, even narrowly defined groups) and apply across all cases. Which doesn't work. Period. You're talking recovering addicts... And most people are instead looking at your actual BROAD question. Which includes:

2A

- Psychopathy

- Sociopathy

- sadists

- sexual sadists

- pedophiles

- and others in the DSM

2B - ALONG with those, who have no structural or chemical neurological disorders and diseases purely acting on choice (even if the choice is : do bad thing or die)

C - Learned Behaviors

D - Culture

2C Etc... Refer back to my original list..which still isn't complete.

3) And now you're trying to take a single setseries of answers (what's generally true for a subset of recovering addicts given xyz variables) and apply them to other narrow focus groups (terrorists & soldiers).

- People who commit acts of terror fall into MANY different groups. Their motivation being only ONE group (not all terrorist are extremists, much less religious extremists... Although many are...they're not even the majority).

- Armies / Wars / Nature of Enmity ... Soldiers actually fighting wars nearly never believe the other side is evil & or bad. Most, quite simply, believe their enemy to be Just Like Them... Soldiers doing their job. Is anger often involved? Of course. But I've never met anyone who actually serves who believes "them" to be bad/evil.

_______

Please stop. This oversimplification of incredibly complex topics, and trying to cram everyone into a single neat BOX, is physically painful.

If you need to believe that you were NEITHER a good person doing bad things, NOR a bad person transitioning into a good one, nor a good one now in order to feel okay with yourself that's FINE. You could even be 100% correct. But Personal Truths rarely translate even to other individuals... Much less universally.

This is true for me, so it must be true for everyone... Is a common fallacy most people fall into from time to time ... But it's also extremely limiting at best and dangerous as well.

None of us need to convince you that what we believe is right/true... BECAUSE THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE TRUTH in the world. My truths do not challenge your truths. You believing you we're/are neither good nor bad isn't made a lie by other people having different experiences. There can be bad people in the world without you having been one of them, regardless of your actions. LOL... And just because our experiences are different hardly makes everyone else ignorant/incapable.

Something can be true for you, without having to be true for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but again, non sequitur. The fact that someone convinces himself that he is justified in his evil does not magically make him un-evil. Satan himself believed he was justified in seeking to usurp the Father's glory, yet he is still called Perdition, being forever lost, and is the personification of evil.

I think you like the phrase non sequitur as much as we like the words moot and rash. Rash statement and moot point, I know.

In your example, he was never evil to begin with, nor did his being change through his evil actions.

Satan believed that he was justified in rebelling against God? Who is non sequitur now? He rebelled against justice himself, thus becoming the devil. He knew that he was not justified in God, he simply thought that he could win. Terrorists on the other hand do believe that they are justified in God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorists on the other hand do believe that they are justified in God.

No. "They" don't. SOME do. Some hope. Some have absolutely NO religious affiliation whatsoever. Some believe their actions will send them to he'll, but its worth it for ________ (publicity, revenge, strategic hits, money, to protect their families, to protect others, etc., etc., etc.,), .

It's.

Just.

Not.

That.

Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last ditch effort: I doubt you'll actually listen, and might not even be capable of listening, but Im a sucker for the underdog.

Old Joke : How does an addict change a lightbulb? By standing still... While the world revolves around them.

1) You asked an incredibly broad question... When it appears you actually had a very narrow focus:

Are recovering addicts, who did bad things in the past, who are now doing good things able to be defined as good people or bad people on the basis of this actions?

Which would receive an incredibly different series of responses.

And then also went on to act as if, even in that narrow scope, no one else has any familiarity with active/recovering addiction (ahem, case in point: how an addict REACTS to xyz being the issue in play... Aka feeling unloveable is the REACTION to the stimulus of being called bad. WHY they react that way is a different kettle of fish. Point being its not being called bad that creates an addict. Being called good/pretty/competent/etc. can ALL create the pain/pressure/etc when seen through an addictive lens... Is probably some of the most basic doctrine in addiction & recovery. The stimulus matters not whether its positive, neutral, or negative. Blame shifting and failure to take responsibility is active addiction/relapse thinking).

2) In addition to that VERY narrow focus (recovering addicts), you've been trying to make that answer, (which fits a very NARROW set of variables, because there are exceptions to every group, even narrowly defined groups) and apply across all cases. Which doesn't work. Period. You're talking recovering addicts... And most people are instead looking at your actual BROAD question. Which includes:

2A

- Psychopathy

- Sociopathy

- sadists

- sexual sadists

- pedophiles

- and others in the DSM

2B - ALONG with those, who have no structural or chemical neurological disorders and diseases purely acting on choice (even if the choice is : do bad thing or die)

C - Learned Behaviors

D - Culture

2C Etc... Refer back to my original list..which still isn't complete.

3) And now you're trying to take a single setseries of answers (what's generally true for a subset of recovering addicts given xyz variables) and apply them to other narrow focus groups (terrorists & soldiers).

- People who commit acts of terror fall into MANY different groups. Their motivation being only ONE group (not all terrorist are extremists, much less religious extremists... Although many are...they're not even the majority).

- Armies / Wars / Nature of Enmity ... Soldiers actually fighting wars nearly never believe the other side is evil & or bad. Most, quite simply, believe their enemy to be Just Like Them... Soldiers doing their job. Is anger often involved? Of course. But I've never met anyone who actually serves who believes "them" to be bad/evil.

_______

Please stop. This oversimplification of incredibly complex topics, and trying to cram everyone into a single neat BOX, is physically painful.

If you need to believe that you were NEITHER a good person doing bad things, NOR a bad person transitioning into a good one, nor a good one now in order to feel okay with yourself that's FINE. You could even be 100% correct. But Personal Truths rarely translate even to other individuals... Much less universally.

This is true for me, so it must be true for everyone... Is a common fallacy most people fall into from time to time ... But it's also extremely limiting at best and dangerous as well.

None of us need to convince you that what we believe is right/true... BECAUSE THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE TRUTH in the world. My truths do not challenge your truths. You believing you we're/are neither good nor bad isn't made a lie by other people having different experiences. There can be bad people in the world without you having been one of them, regardless of your actions. LOL... And just because our experiences are different hardly makes everyone else ignorant/incapable.

Something can be true for you, without having to be true for everyone.

I am perfectly capable of listening to you, it's just that I'm getting tired of hearing you. So, thank you for making this your last ditch effort!

Thank you also for educating me on the doctrine of addiction recovery. I didn't realize you were as familiar with it as I am.

Your argument is absurd. Because the stimulant doesn't create an addict doesn't make it right to be a negative stimulus to others! Will a parent have no accountability before God for the treatment of their child?

You said, "Its not being called bad that creates an addict." I never said that that's what creates an addict. I distinctly recall mentioning my beliefs about myself that created the addict. Do I take accountability for those beliefs, absolutely!

Secondly, I am not the one who is oversimplifying the matter. Good or bad?!!! Really?!!! That's it? That's all there is when it comes to a man's being?

Thirdly...wait what else did you say, sorry I got tired of listening. Something about pedophiles, xyz variables, chemical neuronal something or another, and oh wait, yes that there is more than one truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. "They" don't. SOME do. Some hope. Some have absolutely NO religious affiliation whatsoever. Some believe their actions will send them to he'll, but its worth it for ________ (publicity, revenge, strategic hits, money, to protect their families, to protect others, etc., etc., etc.,), .

It's.

Just.

Not.

That.

Simple.

Sorry to oversimplify terrorism but,

That's

Besides

The

Point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you like the phrase non sequitur as much as we like the words moot and rash. Rash statement and moot point, I know.

I only use the phrase non sequitur when it fits. :)

In your example, he was never evil to begin with, nor did his being change through his evil actions.

What is the antecedent of "he"? Satan? I disagree. He most certainly was evil.

Satan believed that he was justified in rebelling against God? Who is non sequitur now?

I don't think you understand what the phrase means.

He rebelled against justice himself, thus becoming the devil. He knew that he was not justified in God, he simply thought that he could win. Terrorists on the other hand do believe that they are justified in God.

Perhaps no more than Lucifer when he rebelled. I do believe that Satan understood that he was not justified. Likewise, I believe the majority of terrorists understand at some level that their killing of innocents is unjustified. They simply want to do so. Like Satan. Which is evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share