Is man basically good, or basically evil?

[Striped Leopard]

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?

That's true. They aren't necessarily illogical, but I feel that the translation I subscribe to is the one that fits most fully with the whole of Scripture. I'm not opposed to other interpretations or translations. But I trust the vast amount of pastors and teachers who have believed and taught the same idea throughout the centuries of the Church.

I use the translation(s) I use because I have received assurance that the hundreds of scholars who worked on them tried to make them as literal (while still readable) and faithful to the original text as possible. I'm not an avid supporter of any particular translation, but I have heard that ESV and NASB are about the closest you can get to the originals.

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)?

No, I cannot say I have. I have gone a little bit into the Greek of a few books of the Bible, mostly to help with my Bible Bee studies, but I don't make a habit of going to look at the Greek, unless something is very confusing to me. Like I mentioned above, I trust the people who have examined and studied the Greek/Hebrew/Latin, both those who teach God's Word and those who have translated it from the original languages. For the most part, I think, they tend not to be controlled by any bias in their translation, so I don't see any reason to try too hard to understand the original languages, when people who are much more adept in them have already done most of the work for me.

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?

Believe it or not, I don't disagree with the composition, because as you said, it is supported in the Greek. Peter was, in some small sense, the foundation of the Church. Ephesians 2 says that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles. Peter was a leader of the apostles, so it wouldn't be wrong to say that the Church was built on him. (And actually, I also believe that the apostles spoke with infallible authority, when they were preaching the Word of God under the influence of the Holy Spirit.) But ultimately, Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, the true foundation of His Church. He is with us by His Spirit and in His Word. I believe that His Word is the only source of infallible teaching for His people today.

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.

You're right. I don't kill myself studying the original composition of every verse in the Bible. And I don't study every single interpretation that has ever been drawn out of every verse. I suspect that you do not either. No, I don't have absolute proof that the verses say what I think they do, but I do find it interesting that translators (both Catholic and Protestant) have translated them to say basically the exact same thing all the way down through the millenia. We can't all be scholars. I think all of us have to have a certain amount of trust in the work of translators.

[Pound Foolish]

Wow, sorry. I grew impatient, and look how long I took to get back to you. Thanks for being more patient than I. Now then...
Those translations are quite reliable, provided they aren't Protestant. For example, dynamic Protestant translations tend to ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it works with Protestant thinking but as something else when it would support Catholic doctrine. So that can lead to confusion.
In any case, I came on too strongly. (Imagine that.) In reality, translations don't have to be identical to the text, this can be quite confusing. And certainly I did not mean to indicate one should know all the original languages of the Bible and read every book in every single one. We are not all called to such an enormous time commitment. I certainly have not done any of those. I am only somewhat acquainted with Greek and Latin and know almost zilch about Hebrew.
I should have made clear that only the verses we base our core belief on are necessary to study in their original language. Even that is not absolutely essential, I only mean one cannot be absolutely confident in one's interpretation of the verses you base your theology on unless you have some idea of how the original reads.
In any case, perhaps you agree with some of that, perhaps not. You may refute me if you wish, of course, but I have no desire to get locked in a Bible-translations-battle. When it comes right down to it, as long as it is accurate, a Bible is a Bible, the word of God.

Believe it or not, I don't disagree with the composition, because as you said, it is supported in the Greek. Peter was, in some small sense, the foundation of the Church. Ephesians 2 says that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles. Peter was a leader of the apostles, so it wouldn't be wrong to say that the Church was built on him. (And actually, I also believe that the apostles spoke with infallible authority, when they were preaching the Word of God under the influence of the Holy Spirit.) But ultimately, Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, the true foundation of His Church. He is with us by His Spirit and in His Word. I believe that His Word is the only source of infallible teaching for His people today.

Wow. This is going to be delicious.
I do sincerely thank you for saying you agree Peter is the leader of the Apostles, and by the way, absolutely, Jesus is indeed ultimately the cornerstone of the Faith. However, Jesus built his Church on Peter, Peter is below Jesus but in a far higher position of authority than the other apostles, and so are his successors.
As to the Bible being the one great authority, do you know just how the Bible got together in the first place? It wasn't even published for some time. If the Bible is the only authority, and Peter's successor's did not have spiritual authority, the early church was leaderless after Peter.
How do you think the correct books came to be in the Bible in the first place? If you didn't know that Philemon was written by Paul, or 3rd John by John, would you read either a second time? It is not disrespectful to say the contain relatively little essential doctrine in them, they are so short. Yet, they are in the Bible and considered the holy word of God. Not, for example, the gospel of Peter. How were these decisions made?
Well...
The Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to recognize the true books. Specifically in AD 382 at the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus the first. The decision was ratified at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397-419.)
In other words, when Protestants claim that they don't need the authority of The Church, (the church, by the way, that correctly teaches man's nature is good) that Catholicism in fact doesn't even have authority, saying the Bible is their "only" foundation and it is their authority...
They are waving our own authority in our faces as proof we have no authority.

[NateVONgreat]

Last youth meeting we had a discussion about this.
Man is basically Evil. (even those who want to do good, and might be "nicer" than some Christians)
But those who are saved, through God are basically "good"
I think there is not straight forward answer to this philosophical question.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Do you maybe want to expand on what your youth group talked about and maybe link it to what has already been said in this thread? It seems like you enjoy coming into threads and making comments that ignore everything said so far.

[Smile Awhile]

I read your whole thing on that last page, PF, and I fail to understand stand how that changes the meaning of the scripture.

[Pound Foolish]

Well good for you, but could you please explain how it seems irrelevant? Does not the context make clear that the words were pertinent to a specific situation?

[Smile Awhile]

Not really. But even if it did, I have another argument. How about you stop resisting everything and just always do whatever you want to? You would steal things, lie, and do a lot of other wrong things. If that's not proof that man is evil, I don't know what it is.

[Pound Foolish]

So you will not elaborate. Instead, you switch arguments. That is unconvincing. If you really do see something wrong with the idea that the verse was pertinent to a specific situation, why don't you tell us what?

To answer your question, yes, if I followed all my stronger impulses, I would do many more bad things. I would also, by the same token, do many more good ones. After all, we have both bad and good desires we do not act on, do we not?
So no, that is not a proof that man is evil, and I agree, you likley don't know what is. If you do, then please tell us or refute the arguments against your proofs.

[NateVONgreat]

Do you maybe want to expand on what your youth group talked about and maybe link it to what has already been said in this thread? It seems like you enjoy coming into threads and making comments that ignore everything said so far.

no, I don't want to expand, because the message wasn't about that.

and about the commenting, that's exactly what I do! I usually read the last page/ half page and then give my input.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Is there a reason you like being rude to everyone in the discussion?

[Metal15]

I didn't see anything rude.

[jehoshaphat]

He blatantly didn't read anything of the conversation and simply voiced his own opinion without any regard for anyone else.

[Metal15]

There's nothing wrong with reading the title of the thread or perhaps the author's first post, and then stating one's opinion.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Yes there is, it would be like coming up to a group discussing an issue and instead of joining the discussion shouting your own opinion. His post ignores everything already said and simply repeats things said earlier in the thread. He could at least read what was said and join the conversation by saying he agrees with something someone already said.

[Metal15]

No, it's not the same thing, because this is a message board, and involves lots of text not speech. You must admit, there's a very different atmosphere.

And seriously, I don't see why it's wrong to not read every single post you and PF have made over the course of this thread. He didn't necessarily IGNORE it, he may not have seen it, and didn't want to browse the whole thread. There isn't anything wrong with posting his opinion.

That's kind of a nit-picky thing to be concerned with, really... In my honest opinion.

[Eleventh Doctor]

In my honest opinion it would be okay if Nate didn't do this in most threads. He doesn't seem interested in engaging with others just posting his own opinion. You say this is a message board, the point of message boards is so that someone can become involved in a discussion by catching up with the text that has already been written. So if anything that makes it more rude not less than interrupting a speech conversation. If he wants to shout his own opinion without caring about what others say then start a blog.

[Metal15]

He doesn't seem interested in engaging with others just posting his own opinion.

The title of this thread is called: "Is man basically good, or basically evil?" So the first thing that would come into MY brain would be "Hm...I guess I'll state my opinion in response to this question." I might read what other people have stated later, but right now I just want to give my 2 cents in response to this question.

There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That.

So if anything that makes it more rude not less than interrupting a speech conversation.

Lol. I fail to see the logic in this.

If he wants to shout his own opinion without caring about what others say then start a blog.

First of all I wouldn't say he was shouting whatsoever. And secondly, in the long run, a person shouldn't fill his/her mind concerning and fretting about what someone thinks of him. That's a waste of thinking.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Fine, whatever. I just think it would be more courteous to care what others are saying and actually take part in the conversation.

[Metal15]

Perhaps he will. Or, perhaps he's witnessed conversations between people in this thread before and doesn't want to join in, and just wants to state what the thread creator was asking.

[Pound Foolish]

Boys, boys. A little less noise, please.

Back to the topic at hand. So far, what it comes down to is, you people are saying we know our nature is evil because the Bible says so. Well: no one has posted a single verse that successfully makes that point.