Is man basically good, or basically evil?

[Striped Leopard]

Uh, you could do the courtesy of reading the whole post, so "Lol" to you, sir. Kaida already quoted that, and I refuted. Feel free to refute my argument, though. In fact, please do.

Oh. Yes. Lol to me. I am thoroughly humbled now. For some reason, I only saw the first part and your response to it. Sorry about that. =/

My argument would be based on a translation difference. The translations I regularly use say "the inclinations of his heart." It seems to me that the sense is to be, everything man does is evil, and even his imaginations, his inclinations, the things he merely thinks to do, are evil.

I would also like to ask, by what standard do you judge that those who are not born again do good? What constitutes a good work? If Romans 3--quoting Psalm 14--says that no one does good, should we not then modify our definition of "good," since the current definition seems to contradict that verse?

[Eleventh Doctor]

So if a non-believer stops on the side of the road and helps someone that is evil? Also does this mean we as Christians should avoid doing charity work with non-believers since they are doing evil?

[Striped Leopard]

We've had this discussion before, and you know where I stand on this; that's why I was trying to direct this conversation in a slightly different direction. But I will answer your questions nonetheless.

No, I don't believe the deed in and of itself is evil. But multiple places in the Bible we are told that the unsaved cannot perform any action that God sees as morally good. So we must assume that because every action comes out of our hearts, and our hearts are desperately wicked, nothing truly good can come out of our hearts. Thus, even a civilly good act will appear as stained in God's eyes, whether that's due to wrong motives, attitudes, or intentions, I don't know; I'm sure it varies.

As for your second question... I would hesitate to partner with an unbeliever in any sort of work, at least in the sense that I would be seen as "partnering" with them. They can be my co-workers, but I don't know if I would set out to endeavor to do something alongside someone who is a known unbeliever. I don't think Paul's command to not "be unequally yoked with unbelievers" applies only to marriage. The light and the dark have completely different motivations and goals in mind when they do something. Why would I want to partner with someone who is opposed to everything I stand for? So, although in different situations I may say different things, as a general rule, no, I would not partner with an unbeliever.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Would you serve at a soup kitchen if that soup kitchen was secular and not overtly Christian?

You ask what constitutes a good work and say something can be bad because of wrong motives, attitudes, or intentions. Does this mean that believers can do bad works if they do so with wrong motives, attitudes, or intentions? If so does that mean our nature is not changed when we become believers? And if it isn't are we then saying that God's grace is imperfect?

[Striped Leopard]

Yes, I would. As long as there weren't any restrictions that kept me from striking up conversations with people and potentially sharing the gospel with them.

Yes, I believe that even when we are saved, we still have the propensity to be influenced by the remnants of "the old man" and we will fall into sin. But as believers, since we have changed hearts, we now have the ability, by the grace of God, to do truly good things. Christ gives us the grace to have good motives, attitudes, and intentions. We now have the nature that allows us to carry out good deeds to the glory of God.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Well I know you hate it but “Preach the Gospel and when necessary use words.” You would refuse to feed the hungry if you couldn't talk to them?

If a Buddhist stops on the side of the road and helps an injured man, without thought of reward or fame what could he be doing wrong? What about his motives, attitudes, or intentions is wrong?

[Pound Foolish]

Christian, I'd love to continue debating with you, but it seems we seem to need to define our terms first. You have a completely different understanding of sin than I. You say that everything someone who is not saved does is sinful. The act in of itself can be kind, but his motives are consciously subconsciously corrupt. More or less right? But I assume you do not mean that all-non believers sin with full consciousness of it. After all, this would defy reason. Therefore, you think someone can sin without making a deliberate choice to.
Here is my definition of sin. Someone makes a deliberate choice to do something they know is wrong. One cannot sin unless they do so. Otherwise, they are no more sinning than someone who accidentally hits a jaywalker.
Also, what do you mean by, "everything?" You don't mean every time a nonbeliever takes a step or pays for a cup of coffee they are sinning. So what kinds of actions would be sins?

[Striped Leopard]

11th:
Good question... You're right, I don't agree with the "if necessary, use words" part, because the Gospel is the truth about Jesus, something you can't sufficiently explain by any other means than using words. But.... I suppose I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. Jesus did good things for people, even if He didn't necessarily always share a message with them at the same time.

I was mostly saying, if I was with a group that forbid me to share the Gospel with people, even if the topic was brought up, I would not feel comfortable partnering with them. However, my church does a monthly ministry to local homeless shelters, and on the most recent visit, I didn't get the chance to have a personal conversation with any of them. So, no, I don't think it's wrong to only help people.... but that's not what I prefer.

About the Buddhist... I really couldn't tell you. Other than the fact that his heart is "deceitful and desperately wicked" and everything that we do springs from our hearts. I can't judge him. God's Word judges him when it says that the unsaved do no good, that they aren't even able to do good. I have to believe that, so my only explanation is that, in God's eyes, every action taken by someone with an unregenerate heart is unclean and sinful in his eyes.

PF:
Thank you for clarifying the terms. Yes, you are correct about my definition of sin. But I understand what you're saying. In the technical sense, a sin is a conscious choice. If we didn't consciously intend to do something wrong, then it isn't a sin, in that sense. But there is Scripture that indicates that the whole life of an unbeliever is characterized by sin, because nothing good can come out of his corrupt heart.

I can see your confusion about the all-inclusiveness about my definition of sin. I don't think every individual blink of an eye or interaction with another human is a conscious act of sin. But like I said, I do believe that nothing we do can possibly be seen as "good" in God's eyes, apart from a regenerating work done in our hearts.

[Pound Foolish]

What do you mean by, "In the technical sense"? What other sense is there? Is a sin a conscious decision or not? Does it vary? If so, how, why, and when?

You say every "blink of an eye" et cetera is not a "conscious" act of sin. Is it some other form of sin? If not, then not literally everything they do is a sin, yes?

If nothing good can come out of his corrupted heart, then everything he does is a sin. After all, something that has no good in it is by definition evil. Doesn't everything good come from God? If God is not in something, it cannot be good, correct? Therefor, again, if "everything" does mean everything, than every blink of an eye is somehow sinful.

You may argue that things do not have to be inherently good or bad. That a blink of an eye and our other bodily functions are neutral. How could that be so? God made us, and even small and "simple" acts like blinking our eyes, using our complex nerves and brain to coat our eyes with a formula that prevents them from drying so that we can see our wonderful world, are necessary part of the whole of us. In other words, while it is not kind, it is good. And thus not sinful.

Let's solidify all this with a final consideration. Suppose a non-Christian shook someone's hand. Would that be sinful?
If so, then somehow, in the split moment when they saw someone they (we shall in this case say) they have genuine affection for, they deliberately chose to sin. Or is the act of sinning not necessarily or a conscious choice? Or is the handshake not a sin at all?

[Striped Leopard]

I will be honest and say that I'm not sure. Believe it or not, this is something that I've struggled with. I believe that every creation of God brings glory to Him just by living and breathing, merely because they are His creative handiwork. In that sense then, every blink brings Him glory and is therefore very good.

But... in another sense... we are living in a fallen creation. Every one of our bodies is fallen. Every one of our souls is fallen before our redemption. So... I still hold to the verses that say that there is no one who does good, that no one can obey the law of God, that everything that anyone does proceeds out of his wicked heart.

But sin... in its truest sense... must be defined as willful rebellion against God. So is every blink an act of rebellion against God? No. It's not. Will God punish the wicked in hell for blinking as unregenerate souls? I don't think so. So... how that fits... I'm just not sure. Maybe someday I'll hear some teaching on it and finally understand. But right now I don't.

[Pound Foolish]

Others have very different interpretations of those verses. Are they illogical? In fact, earlier, you spoke about the translations you "regularly use." Do you use them because they line up entirely with the original text?
Do you know what the original text even is for those verses? Have you read them in Latin, Greek, (et cetera depending on which book and time period)?
Catholicism and its belief in authority is based on Jesus' statement, "On this rock, I build my church." This statement retains more or less the same composition in Aramaic, the language in which Jesus would have said it. Therefor, we believe the Church was founded in some way on Peter, specifically that he alone could speak with theological infallibility. You obviously would disagree with this interpretation, but it is not illogical in the context of the original text.
Again, have you even read the original text of the verses on which you base these core beliefs of yours?
If you not, you do not have faith in the verses. You have faith in your opinion of the verses. After all, the sentences, Biblical ones included, are often entirely different in another language, needless to say. You do not have proof that these verses say what you think they do, and yet you cling to your interpretation.
Perhaps you have read the original text. In that case, can you logically refute the alternative interpretations? If not, then you are favoring you opinion over other legitimate interpretations, and so your faith is still in yourself rather than in scripture.
But perhaps you have read the original text, and do indeed have logical refutations of the alternative interpretations of your scriptural evidence. If so, let's hear it. The floor is yours.
You asked for a different kind of debate, Christian. Well, ask and you shall receive.

[SirWhit]

Others have very different interpretations of those verses. Are they illogical? In fact, earlier, you spoke about the translations you "regularly use." Do you use them because they line up entirely with the original text?
Do you know what the original text even is for those verses? Have you read them in Latin, Greek, (et cetera depending on which book and time period)?
Catholicism and its belief in authority is based on Jesus' statement, "On this rock, I build my church." This statement retains more or less the same composition in Aramaic, the language in which Jesus would have said it. Therefor, we believe the Church was founded in some way on Peter, specifically that he alone could speak with theological infallibility. You obviously would disagree with this interpretation, but it is not illogical in the context of the original text.
Again, have you even read the original text of the verses on which you base these core beliefs of yours?
If you not, you do not have faith in the verses. You have faith in your opinion of the verses. After all, the sentences, Biblical ones included, are often entirely different in another language, needless to say. You do not have proof that these verses say what you think they do, and yet you cling to your interpretation.
Perhaps you have read the original text. In that case, can you logically refute the alternative interpretations? If not, then you are favoring you opinion over other legitimate interpretations, and so your faith is still in yourself rather than in scripture.
But perhaps you have read the original text, and do indeed have logical refutations of the alternative interpretations of your scriptural evidence. If so, let's hear it. The floor is yours.
You asked for a different kind of debate, Christian. Well, ask and you shall receive.

Did Jesus ever say that Peter could pass the right or ability to speak with theological infallibility on to other people? If not, then how do you justify the Catholic Pope claiming to have theological infallibility? Just wondering.

BTW - I don't really have an opinion on this because I haven't really thought about it, so...yeah.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I would ask PF to take a look at my points in the Christian vs. Catholic thread and answer the question there.

[Blitz]

Note- Satan is not apposed to good morals as long as the person is not a Christian or it hinders his work. Sometimes he uses 'good morals' to keep people from Christ.
I would like to point out the fact our good works matter not until we are a Christian. The Bible says it. Our good works are as filth rags. So basically our 'good' before we become Christians does not matter. I think because of our fallen state unless we are restored, nothing we do can be 'good'. It can be moral but it cannot be 'good'. Remember God is different from us and we are limited in our view. We cannot truly know why God does certain things. So my personal opinion is that before we are saved our 'good' is not good. God only know what is true so it might be wrong it might be right.

[Pound Foolish]

Mr. Whit's End
A good thrust, now to parry. I think you know of course Jesus never explicitly said Peter would have authority over Christianity in so many words, but I will play along with your rhetorical question. Jesus did say, however, "Do you love me more than these?" ("These" obviously includes the Apostles, the only ones present.) Peter answered yes, to which Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." As the previous statement had included the Apostles, affirming Peter to be in a higher place, we can assume Peter was supposed to feed not only the rest of the world, but the apostles as well. Obviously then, he had authority over them.
Plus, as I said, Jesus built his Church on Peter. In other words, founded the church on him in some way. That clearly indicates Peter has a special position of some kind or other.
Both these passages show that Peter had a special station, that is, a special position over the Apostles, that is, authority. And what exactly was that authority, pray tell? Authority to predict the weather? Jesus founded His Church on Peter, Peter's authority is over the church. Well, thank you for joining this debate.
note: As I said, the point was that the interpretation, even if you disagree with it, has logic to it in the context of the original text. That one can't simply draw one's own conclusions from the Bible simply because they "prefer" the translation, one must be accurate. Perhaps the translation is accurate, it doesn't matter. Things are still going to be very different in the original text of any work. This is common sense.
Also, if you want to continue debating about this, please do so, as Doctor requested, in Christian vs. Catholic. I replied to you here this once simply to be sure you would see it. But we do not want these two very complicated debates going on in the same place. Thank you.

Satan is not apposed to good morals as long as the person is not a Christian

I am going to be very blunt here: on what planet does that make sense?

I would like to point out the fact our good works matter not until we are a Christian. The Bible says it.

You have obviously not read many of the posts in this debate. But anyway, does the Bible say that? Very well then. Where?

[GratiaDei]

I think Blitz means that Satan likes it when non-Christians say, "I do good on my own, I don't need God." I have heard this argument before.

[Blitz]

Yep that is what I am saying. The Devil isn't exactly going to try to beat it out of a person and encourage them to do wrong. Satan is just against God so anything that works against God work for him. If you are self-righteous(which Paul condemns in Romans) go ahead and be self-righteous.
“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away” (Isaiah 64:6)
So good works are useless or they would get us saved. And since they don't why do them if you aren't a Christian?

[Pound Foolish]

You take the "filthy rags" quote out of context. This is something Protestants inevitably do as you are trying to understand the scriptures entirely through your own wisdom and that of those around you, as well perhaps (in some cases) past philosophers. I do not say that Catholics do not do it as well, we are all greatly limited in our wisdom. However, it seems Protestants are, by definition, prone it. The verse you mention does not say that all acts of righteousness are as filthy rags to God, but that those being rendered to him in Isaiah's day were.In context the passage says:

"Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Your sacred cities have become a desert; even Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a desolation. Our holy and glorious Temple, where our fathers praised you, has been burned with fire, and all that we treasured lies in ruins. (Is 64:4-6, 10-11, NIV)"

This pertains to a particular historical situation, not to a general condition. The passage appeals to a time when Israelites once had a right relationship with God, when God helped them against their enemies because they waited on him, gladly did right, and remembered his ways.

When they sin against him and did not repent and return to their former state, he abandoned them to the will of their enemies, so that even Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. (Isaiah speaks of this prophetically, before it happened.)

It was during that period of continued sin, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., that they had "become like one who is unclean"--they hadn't always been like that. In this state, even the nation's acts of righteousness appeared like filthy rags to God, so he wouldn't help them: "When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is 1:15-17).
To be clear, while Catholics realize that our good works, whether we are Christian or not, cannot be sinful when done with good intent, we do not teach that we go to Heaven or are justified in the sight of God through works. The Council of Trent stated that "nothing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification" (Decree on Justification 8 ) . In other words, God is pleased with goodness, but that does not mean we ourselves are without a doubt pure or destined for Heaven.

[Smile Awhile]

Now, to take the question deeper, what do people believe about the abilities of natively evil man? If man is basically and natively evil, can he do any good? Or, when the Bible says that men are slaves to sin and dead in their sins, does that mean that he can do no good at all before he is saved?

The Bible says that our righteousness is as filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6) that pretty much sums it up for me.

[Pound Foolish]

*smiles* Ahem. Pardon. Maybe I shouldn't laugh. I seem to have a reply right above you. Wow, talk about quick service. (Blitz already tried the Isiah tactic you just used.)
I do realize though that that is a perfectly natural mistake. I do it sometimes, I often don't have enough time or interest to read an entire thread.
However, now you know that I have a reply (Asterix's wings point the way) would you mind seeing if you can take it on? (Blitz, if you're reading, I'd be very interested if you would please reply to the challenge I gave you. Anyone else, of course, is welcome to please join in, as always.)