Mark 10:18. What does it mean? From the NIV (the translation I'll be using throughout this post), it says, “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. About whom is Jesus speaking when He says "No one is good"? There's no indication that He's referring to any specific people or group of people. He simply says, "NO ONE is good." Indeed, the only exception He cites is "God alone". That sounds like ONLY God and no one else anywhere.
And what is Jesus saying about no one being good? He doesn't say in this passage, "No one does good", does He? Doesn't look like it in any of the 46 translations I've reviewed at Bible Hub. Each of them say distinctly, no one IS good. This speaks to the condition of every person, or, as the Amplified Bible puts it, "No one is [essentially] good [by nature] except God alone." BY NATURE??? (The parentheticals are from the Amplified Bible) Oh, NO! Could it be that the nature of mankind is the opposite of "good"??? Like maybe... bad? Someone might say, "this is speaking of perfection, and being imperfect doesn't mean sinful". But what makes Jesus "perfect" if not that He was born sinless...that He was without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, John 8:46, Hebrews 4:15, 7:26, 1 Peter 2:22)?
So, if Mark 10:18 isn't contrasting a perfect, sinless God with man's imperfection by virtue of man's sin nature, then what does Jesus's statement, "No one is good" mean?
Jeremiah 17:9. What does it mean? It says, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Who is the person who's heart is referenced here? There's no specific person mentioned. It is the heart of man which is deceitful and beyond cure. If that doesn't reference a sin nature, what then does it mean? Even in the context from which this verse is drawn we see it as the reason one's trust must be in God alone, and not in man or the flesh. If it isn't speaking to our sin nature, what does it mean?
Psalm 51:5. What does it mean? It says, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Sinful from conception? How is that not an acknowledgement of the speaker's (David's) sin nature? Is he saying he was exceptional in this way, and that only his nature is sinful? How can one make that case? Is he being hyperbolic? Again, on what basis can anyone say this without merely expressing the hope that he is? How is that even more likely than David simply stating that he is NOT unique among men, but rather that he is as sinful by nature as everyone else? If this Psalm doesn't mean "sin nature", what does it mean?
Romans 7:18. What does it mean? It says, "For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." Here again we have a man, Paul, stating what is true about himself as an example for that which is common to us all. He even goes as far as to name the problem specifically as his "sinful nature". Are we to assume that like David, only Paul is so plagued? How can one defend that position? If Romans 7:18 isn't affirming the concept of man's sin nature, then what does it mean?
Romans 5:12-14. What does it mean? It says, " Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come." (emphasis mine) The emboldened part indicates ALL are stained by Adam's sin, and indeed is a teaching repeated several times in Scripture. It indicates ALL have a sin nature as a result. If this is NOT what verse 14 is saying, what does it mean?
Ephesians 2:1-2. What does this mean? It says, "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient." Does this verse not speak to the condition of those who had come to Christ, contrasting them not only to their previous selves (pre-conversion), but to those still disobedient? If it's not speaking to our sin nature, what does it mean?
Ephesians 2:3. What does THIS mean? It says, "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath." (emphasis mine) If verses 1-3 aren't teaching about our sin nature, what do they mean?
Genesis 8:21. What does this mean? It says, "And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse[a] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done." (emphasis mine) "Youth"? From what age specifically is this verse referencing? How can one support the concept it doesn't mean "from birth"? If the emboldened, italicized portion of this verse isn't also speaking of our sin nature, what does it mean?
Psalm 14:2–3. What does this mean? It says, "The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand,any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (emphasis mine) "All" means "everyone". If this doesn't speak to mankind's sin nature, what does it mean?
Job 15:14-16. What does this mean? It says, “What are mortals, that they could be pure, or those born of woman, that they could be righteous? If God places no trust in his holy ones, if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes, how much less mortals, who are vile and corrupt, who drink up evil like water!" If this isn't denoting mankind's sin nature, what does it mean?
Ecclesiastes 9:3. What does this mean? It says, "This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead." (emphasis mine) Is this verse speaking of a specific people, or people in general when it says, "the hearts of people"? The author of this book, thought to be King Solomon, is reflecting on life in general and thus on people in general. If this is not what he means, what then does it mean?
On September 7, 2026 at 10:29 AM in comments under Dan Trabue's post "Love the "Sinner." Period." (8/29/26), Dan says this laugher:
"IF you want to take the more respectful, rational, humble approach and ask me to address a given text as it relates to your personal human theory, unproven as it is, then cite a passage - your best passage - and I'll offer my opinion about the passage in question as it relates to your human theory and explain (probably once again) why I don't think a given passage is at all proof of your theory/theories."
The citations in this post, as well as a veritable cornucopia of citations I've presented in many, many comments have all been invitations to Dan to provide for us meaning the verses themselves don't plainly convey. That he dares offer to do so now, as if the invitation for such hasn't be an open one for years is typical Dan. But, I'll make the challenge specific once again. I don't want him to "explain" anything. I want him to PROVE the verses I cite don't stand as evidence for the principles he doesn't want to believe are Biblical. This means he needs to bring evidence that the verses I cite mean something entirely different than a plain reading of them so clearly suggests. Without that, he's just blowing farts.
200 comments:
What the text seems to be saying is not that no one DOES good things. It seems to be suggesting that our nature is not good, even if our actions might sometimes be good. Further, as we see elsewhere, even our good actions are not as good as we might think they are.
In short, declaring people to be "good people" based on their "good actions" seems to be a poor choice.
There ARE good people in the world because of their character, their lives of grace, their lives of decency, aside from any specific actions. It's observable. But of course having character and grace and decency means there are positive good actions, as well. Good, as good is typically defined and as it is defined in the Bible.
Further, the biblical text contains many instances where Jesus and others expect us to be good people. That you all don't understand poetry or using figurative language is part of your reading deficit. Be better. Learn to read better.
What's really a shame is that y'all have internalized that YOU ALL are not good and that the people that you love are not good people. That's just sort of pathetic and sad. That would tend to confirm your suspicions about yourselves if not about others.
In other words, one does not have to be perfect in order to be good. Words have meanings.
And as always, part of your reading deficit and lack of rational understanding is treating/mistreating the Bible as if it were a rulings book. "How do we know there are no good people? Because Jesus said words to indicate that to me, as I take them literally."
That's a piss-poor and abusive way to read the Bible.
Other than your lack of capacity for reading poetic language, where is your objective proof that people can't be good? You have none and data disagrees with your little human theory.
Dan
I could have added more verses, but they were not as definitive as these in affirming the Biblical principle regarding man's sin nature. But it's that very sin nature which provokes some to dismiss such verses as not definitive at all or too few to be of any significance in supporting the principle as Biblical. As we know, it doesn't work that way for that which those same people insist must be regarded as Biblical truths. The typical double-standard.
It will be interesting to see if there will be any legitimate challenges to what I've posted here, especially in light of that which Dan said to me, as highlighted at the end of the post. Should we hold our collective breath?
Marshal...
have all been invitations to Dan to provide for us meaning the verses themselves don't plainly convey. That he dares offer to do so now, as if the invitation for such hasn't be an open one for years is typical Dan. But, I'll make the challenge specific once again. I don't want him to "explain" anything. I want him to PROVE the verses I cite don't stand as evidence for the principles he doesn't want to believe are Biblical.
I will gladly come once again to explain what I think are the clear errors you are making in your reading of these kinds of texts. But let's begin with some ground rules, some points we can agree upon as we begin to look at your proof texts for your particular human theories...
1. It is entirely possible to read a biblical text and do so irrationally or in a way that is not supported by known, accepted data. That is, one could read a text about the four corners of the Earth and conclude that the Earth is a flat square. It would be irrational and contrary to known data but it can and does happen.
Agreed?
2. That there are, of course, regular uses of imagery, hyperbole, and otherwise figurative language used throughout all the Bible
Agreed?
3. That there is no authoritative or perfectly objective outside rubric or criteria for authoritatively deciding which passages are figurative or imagery and which ones are not. We have to use our human reasoning to reach such conclusions.
Agreed?
I think you and I can agree to these. But you tell me.
Dan
Some preliminary questions that I don't know if you can agree with or not. Just to get clarity...
A. Would you concede that throughout the Bible, and in the specific teachings of Jesus, and in the teachings of other authors in the New Testament, there isn't a place or a specifically clear set of tenets of the way or religion that came to be known as Christianity (in a spelled-out, systematic manner)?
Put another way, if an unbiased reader unfamiliar with them or Christian tenets, if they read the gospel stories, for instance, would you think that this reader would say, "Oh yes, Jesus is defining something very much like modern evangelicals would call Christianity," or would you see that that is not clear or direct in Jesus' teachings?
B. Do you acknowledge that Jesus' conflict in his time of teaching was especially and primarily with the Pharisees and the Sadducees? That these were the people that Jesus consistently fought with, who fought against Jesus, and Jesus consistently rebuked?
C. Would you concede that a lot of Jesus's teaching is informed by that ongoing Pharisaical conflict?
Dan
"There ARE good people in the world because of their character, their lives of grace, their lives of decency, aside from any specific actions."
This is not a response to my challenge, but your typical avoidance of it. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the question of the Biblical principle of mankind's sin nature.
"Further, the biblical text contains many instances where Jesus and others expect us to be good people."
Totally irrelevant to the issue on the table.
" That you all don't understand poetry or using figurative language is part of your reading deficit."
This vaguely approaches the issue on the table, as you're challenged to prove my understanding of what's plainly stated in Scripture is erroneous in any way. I read just fine. You're unable to prove I have any difficulty doing so at all. YOU, however, seem to have a problem reading my post and the challenge it presents to you.
"What's really a shame is that y'all have internalized that YOU ALL are not good and that the people that you love are not good people."
Demonstrating your inability to "read better" than I do, this in no way reflects anything I've said, or anything Craig has ever said, and we've been very deliberate and distinct about the difference between being "good" by Biblical standards and "good" by comparison to other people. Most of the people I respect most I regard as good people without pretending they're not sinners or prone to sin because of their sin nature. You choose to ignore this oft told distinction as if it never was presented to you on multiple occasions, which at least serves to prove that YOU are not a good person to so routinely and openly lie about us...again.
"In other words, one does not have to be perfect in order to be good."
Not by human standards, no.
"And as always, part of your reading deficit and lack of rational understanding is treating/mistreating the Bible as if it were a rulings book."
When you can prove that the Bible is required to refer to itself as a "rulings book", your comment won't stand as the pointless, useless and childish falsehood it is.
""How do we know there are no good people? Because Jesus said words to indicate that to me, as I take them literally.""
A verse you're tasked with proving means something other than what His clearly presented words claim. We Christ followers tend to take Jesus at His word.
" That's a piss-poor and abusive way to read the Bible."
I don't read the Bible in order to find loopholes and liberty to ignore the Will of God. You do.
" Other than your lack of capacity for reading poetic language, where is your objective proof that people can't be good?"
My post contains all the evidence I need to support the fact that the Bible teaches we're all born with a sin nature, which due to the many verses I've cited to that end, means I've provided "data" which proves the fact I defend. So, given your lack of capacity for reading that which is plainly presented, I'll explain again that you're not here to prove that people are "good", but that the verses I've cited do not mean what the words convey.
In the meantime, I'm not obliged to provide any more than I have in order for you to borrow a pair of testicles and take on the challenge which, by your pearl-clutching petulance, should be easy enough to do given how certain you are I'm not understanding the citations properly.
"I will gladly come once again to explain what I think are the clear errors you are making in your reading of these kinds of texts. But let's begin with some ground rules...,"
I already set the ground rules. They're simple to understand, even for simpletons? They go something like this:
"But, I'll make the challenge specific once again. I don't want him to "explain" anything. I want him to PROVE the verses I cite don't stand as evidence for the principles he doesn't want to believe are Biblical. This means he needs to bring evidence that the verses I cite mean something entirely different than a plain reading of them so clearly suggests."
How can one with a superior ability to comprehend the written word have failed to notice this sole ground rule? It couldn't be simpler. I already know you think I'm not understanding the simply language of these verses. I need no further comment to that effect. I need evidence..."HARD DATA"...to even hint that these verses aren't confirming the Biblical teaching of man's sin nature.
And where do you get off demanding I set any rules to satisfy you, as if you ever show that level of grace at your Blog of Lies and Perversions? If you can't meet the challenge as presented, then run away like the coward you consistently prove yourself to be. I couldn't possibly think any less of you than I already do if that's the choice you make now.
"1. It is entirely possible to read a biblical text and do so irrationally or in a way that is not supported by known, accepted data."
That's the challenge, Nancy. Bring evidence to prove my understanding of these verses are erroneous. Bring that "known, accepted data" and I'll watch you fail to do that.
"2. That there are, of course, regular uses of imagery, hyperbole, and otherwise figurative language used throughout all the Bible "
That's irrelevant to whether or not any of those forms of writing result in my having misunderstood the teaching of the verses I've cited. Bring that "known accept data" and all will be well. I'll wait here and watch you fail to do so.
"3. That there is no authoritative or perfectly objective outside rubric or criteria for authoritatively deciding which passages are figurative or imagery and which ones are not."
Irrelevant. Do you want to know what actually is relevant? "Known, accepted data" which shows I've not understood the cited verses properly.
I think where you and I can find agreement is in the fact that you have no "known accepted data"...no evidence of any kind...which can prove I'm mistaken on the understanding of any of the verses I cited, nor which can show they don't prove the concept of man's sin nature is a Biblical teaching.
But you tell me. With "known accepted data".
Point A is stupidly irrelevant and meaningless for the purpose of you meeting the challenge presented to you here.
Point B is just wrong. Thus, so is Point C.
Sigh. You lose before you even begin. You're arguing in bad faith and irrationally and emotionally, which doesn't lead to good conversations.
Look, setting some basic starting points for agreement is going to be essential. You're making a vague claim about something being "biblical." What does that mean? Are you saying these words appear in the Bible that you're quoting?
The answer is, of course, yes. No one's disputing that.
The question is, what do those words mean..? Do they mean what you think in your head they mean..? Or are other interpretations possible, optional, or even likely (which is, of course, a fact, given reality, that other people disagree with your opinions) which is why I'm stating these ground rules and basic beginning agreements, to establish good faith and rational processes for determining meaning to the degree that we can.
If you don't want to have a discussion in good faith, that's on you. Answer them directly or not.
As to your direct answers in disagreements with points B and C, do you recognize that, of course, there are many conservatives who would easily agree with those points?
Dan
Setting aside your emotional and arrogant bad faith responses, let's look at Mark 10. But any good student of any text, especially the Bible, knows that it's always important to consider the context of any one given passage. Whether you're willing to acknowledge that or not, it's reality.
And what IS the context?
1. The ongoing feud with/attacks from the rich and powerful, including and especially the Pharisees. Mark 10 (and the passages before) begins with this...
Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
Some Pharisees came
and tested him
by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
Much like you, in their arrogance, they are trying to lay a "scripture trap" for Jesus, thinking they can catch him in a legalistic trap for failing to be as legalistic as they are/were. This IS an ongoing theme in Jesus' story, it is the context which Jesus is teaching and Jesus' responses everywhere are very much, at least in part, responses to the Pharisees and their abusive and graceless legalism. Thus, when Jesus later responds to the rich young man, he's responding to the wealthy man AND to the Pharisees.
As Jesus says to the rich young man, "Give your money to the poor and come, follow me" in verse , it is a direct slap in the face of the Pharisees, who, as it is said in Luke 16, were "lovers of money." Indeed, they were arrogant, snide lovers of money, given that description ("The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.")
THAT is the context of this later (in Mark 10) exchange between the rich young man who wouldn't surrender his wealth to the poor and Jesus.
Just as a starting point.
I haven't lost when it's me who put the challenge to you, which you prefer to dance around rather than meet head on. All which should be of sole concern to you is to explain what the verses I've cited mean if the plain reading doesn't mean what a plain reading conveys. You're the one who says I don't understand the verses I've cited. So I've listed them again, individually, chapter and verse number and presented what each of them says and how each of them shows what you suggest none of them does when you chose to assert that the principle of man's sin nature is not a Biblical teaching.
Thus, THE QUESTION you are challenged to answer in full with evidence in support is "if the verses don't mean what a plain reading of them suggests they mean, what else could they possibly mean?" To use your words in your cheap attempt to tap-dance away, if other interpretations are possible, or in any way likely, just freakin' present your alternative understanding with evidence to support the possibility that it's worth a damn. THAT is how one engages in good faith discussion...not this petty crap and drivel you're spewing instead.
Here's some more good faith for ya: You don't even have an alternative understanding of any of the verses I've cited, which is why you won't get down and get busy providing them. You just don't want to accept the fact that we are all born with a sin nature, just as Scripture teaches. That's why you're playing these games while pretending I'm the one falling short. That's why you're fucking around while insisting you care about "good faith" discussion.
As to my direct answers in disagreements with points B and C, do you recognize that I'm not confronting conservatives on those points? If there are any who disagree with me, they can speak for themselves. Stop deflecting and avoiding your obligation to prove your claims.
2. So, in your proof text verse, we see this exchange:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered.
“No one is good—except God alone."
You know the commandments...
The question that arises is what is Jesus meaning by this line (which, in the story, is sort of a throwaway line, not the central point of the story*)? In looking at the parallel text in Matthew 19, it reads this way...
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
IS Jesus trying to say that there is no sense in which typical humans are ever rightly considered "good..."? OR, is he irrationally saying, "Unless you're perfect as an almighty God, you can't be good..."?
Both of those fail the smell test. It's not a rational claim to say that Unless you're as good as a GOD, you can't be considered good. That's crazy talk. There's a difference between DIVINE PERFECTION and basic human goodness. Do you think that God expects mere mortals to be as perfect as a God? Do you think that God expects humans to create whole universes from scratch? That would suggest an insane god, not a perfectly Good God.
Rathe, in the context of the story, and the day, and the context of Jesus' ongoing dispute with the Pharisees who "loved the praise of humans" and with an eye towards the legalistic Pharisees who piled rules and rules upon people only to condemn and condemn them (sound familiar??) and who were "lovers of money and sneered at Jesus" and his rejection of money as a measure of anything positive...
...AND with an eye towards the rich man, himself, in a society that regularly assumed wealth meant you were blessed and beloved of God and that the poor must have done something wrong (again, the context of attitudes of the day is important), who somewhat smugly said, "All of those commandments, I've kept from childhood,"
IN THAT CONTEXT, is it NOT more reasonable that he's removing the planks of arrogance, privilege, abuse and wealth from both the Pharisees and the rich, putting them in their place and reminding the blessed poor who he'd come to preach good news to that he was on their side?
That, to me, is the obvious answer. And it's not just me who would offer that response.
3. Further, when considering context of this story, we are well-served to remember the context of Jesus' ongoing stories/teachings warning against the privileges and abuses of wealth and teaching in favor of allying with the poor and marginalized, this story of the privileged rich man who presumed he followed "all these commandments from my youth" and the context of the abusive and arrogant Pharisees who loved money and sneered at Jesus' teachings on this: In THAT context, we have this story of Jesus loving this sad privileged man who was enslaved to his pride and wealth. The point of THIS story is NOT the throwaway line about "why do you call me good, no one good but God" but the denouement of the rich man walking away from salvation and Jesus' warning of the trappings of wealth, saying that it is hard, nigh unto impossible, for the rich to be part of the realm of God. THAT is the point of the story, not that God is way more good than humans OR that all humans are "not good."
You're straining gnats and swallowing camels to focus on that one line and thereby miss the point of the story. It would seem to me.
More...
So, where you blindly and blandly demand, "if the verses don't mean what a plain reading of them suggests they mean, what else could they possibly mean?" I've offered a solidly biblical, solidly contextual, solidly reasonable explanation of the story (as you would know if you'd been reading for understanding all these years). Jesus used the "no one is good but God" as a stab at both the rich man and the Pharisees, who both clearly thought they WERE good... and NOT as an attempt to suggest that unless you were as good as a perfect God, you're not able to be "good." Again, that's crazy talk.
Now, you may not find my solidly biblical, textual, contextual and rational understanding of the text believable or something you can agree with, but as a simple fact, that explanation IS a reasonable explanation of what the passage COULD mean and, in fact, does mean for many of us who in good faith believe exactly that.
So now, the question this poses to you is, "Must I AGREE with another explanation for it to be an actual explanation?" Agree or not, that's the reality. It IS an alternative explanation for your nonsense and graceless theory, and one which, ironically, suggests you missed the point of the story ENTIRELY and came down on the side of the Pharisees and the rich man, who were the ones being rebuked.
But then, that tracks.
Also, I would add the final: IF something objectively exists in the real world, then denying reality in favor of an interpretation of a Bible verse is neither rational nor biblical. Clearly, there ARE good people in the world, people with good hearts, good intentions, who are loving, helpful, gracious, welcoming... in a word, Godly.
Just as we can look objectively at the globe and say that the reality of a spherical earth undermines ANY attempt to try to take the flat earth passages literally, so to, the reality of good people undermines any attempt at taking "there is no one good" literally. The ONLY way to make a literal interpretation even begin to make sense is to redefine "good," but rational adults are under no obligation to go along with your new and different definition of the notion of Good.
Fair enough?
I’d ask Dan to prove his claim, but his “proof” would be that he knows “good people” because he’s seen them do things he subjectively defines as “good”.
He wants to use his limited, subjective, biased, observation of a small sample size of someone’s life to cast them as an objectively “good” person.
Blah, blah, blah, circular argument, small sample size, bias, blah, blah, blah.
It all boils down to Dan passing judgment based on himself and his personal experience.
Marshal, explain specifically what YOU MEAN by "it's biblical" in relation to your theories about human "sin natures..." That would be helpful.
The problem with this diversion is that it assumes (without proof) that the text in question is automatically figurative. Why does he assume this without proof? Because it seems that way to him.
What does exist is the data to do a word study for the word in question to determine how it’s used elsewhere in Scripture. So it’s completely within the realm of possibility to determine whether this is figurative to a high degree of likelihood.
But this is just Dan regurgitating the same old talking points and shtick.
You know that Dan isn’t going to offer a specific, Biblical, coherent, alternative meaning to the plain text that fits the context. If he could do so, he would have done so long before now.
He’s just gonna play the “figurative language” card, without even explaining what the meaning being conveyed by the “figurative language” really is.
But maybe he’s secretly an expert in Aramaic and Koine and will surprise us all.
I'll further note that you gladly allow for figurative language when it makes sense to you - hyperbole, parable, allegory, etc. Just today, you noted on my blog...
Verses which speak of babies telling lies
are examples of hyperbole
to get across the message regarding the reality of our sin nature.
And of course, it is. There aren't newborn babies telling lies, it's a line the author made to emphasize his sinfulness or penitent desires. And we can objectively KNOW that because of course, newborns can't talk or meaningfully form ideas in order TO tell lies.
Likewise, "four corners of the earth" are not literally describing a flat square earth. It's imagery and we can KNOW that because we can SEE that the earth is a globe.
LIKEWISE, "no one is good but God" is an exercise in hyperbole. NO ONE compares to God in perfect goodness, because of course, not. But that doesn't mean there aren't good people. I don't know about you, but I know as a point of observable fact dozens of good people. Their reality undermines a literal interpretation... of course, it's figurative.
You ALLOW for the possibility of understanding some phrases and lines figuratively. Why is that NOT an option - even just an option that SOME people might take as the most likely option - in THIS case? And on what basis is it objectively NOT a biblical and rational option.
And when I say such interpretations are not biblical, I'm stating an opinion about something neither of us can prove objectively but that I believe nonetheless... that such attempts to take a line literally undermine other, more rational and consistently biblical messages about God. Like the notion that God is an irrational jerk who thinks if a human mortal is not as good as an almighty God, then that human is NOT GOOD at all.
It's an irrational opinion in the extreme and, in the case of knowing/reading about good people in the Bible AND seeing good people in real life, we can reasonably call that unbiblical. Regardless, my further point in calling it unbiblical is that it's objectively NOT a proven notion from God.
Understand?
Good people in the Bible:
First of all, we have Jesus assuming that there were good people...
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good,
~Luke 6
Likewise, he assumes there are good AND just people...
For God makes the sun rise on the evil and
on the good,
and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
~Matthew 5
And again...
The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
~Matthew 12
The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose,
for he was a good man,
full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.
~Acts 11
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time
~Gen 6
In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil
~Job 1
A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children
~Proverbs 13
I'm sure I could go on.
Are you willing to acknowledge that BIBLICALLY, there are texts that say both things, that NO ONE is good but God AND that YES, there are good people?
And thus, to take only the irrational and unproven half (NO ONE IS good) and ignore the other texts, that is another way of being unbiblical. And, once again, regardless, it's certainly not objectively proven that there are no such thing as good people, which has been my point on this topic. Objectively, yes, there are.
And so, once again, " what else could they possibly mean?" Lots of things, including that Jesus was engaging in clear hyperbole to make a point (contextually, to the rich and to the Pharisees, specifically).
How is there anything wrong in that estimation/explanation of " what else could they possibly mean?"
Because I have some time, I'll move on to your second proof text and demonstrate your misunderstanding there.
Jeremiah, in context:
“But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,
whose confidence is in God.
They will be like a tree planted by the water
that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
and never fails to bear fruit.”
[PROOF TEXT!!!]
The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?
“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward each person according to their conduct,
according to what their deeds deserve.”
1. "The heart" is deceitful... right away, we can see that Jeremiah is speaking metaphorically here. "The heart" is a muscle for pumping blood. Rather, Jeremiah is metaphorically speaking of our Self, our motivations and understanding, not literally the heart.
2. But even so, "the heart is "deceitful..."? "Beyond cure..."? Why say that if this is the case. There's nothing we can know at all if our Self is deceitful and twisted and hopelessly beyond cure, right?
3. UNLESS, once again and like others, Jeremiah is merely speaking hyperbolically, emphasizing our fallen nature, our tendency to oftentimes get things wrong.Right? Isn't that the more likely option?
4. Again, IN CONTEXT, we see that Jeremiah allows that "blessed is the one who trusts in God" and, at least at times, worthy of "reward," for NOT being deceived beyond hope. CLEARLY, textually and contextually and in the real world, Jeremiah allows for the option of good humans doing the right, having good character and being good.
I view passages such as this much like the passage from Paul when he complains about "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing." or like David, that "man after God's own heart," who raped/sexually preyed upon Bathsheba and who murdered her husband.
When people mess up, they say things like Chris Farley saying something silly to Sir Paul McCartney and face palming himself saying, "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!!" We beat ourselves up and berate ourselves all the time, that too, is part of human nature. And when we do that, we often engage in hyperbole.
The most reasonable and biblical notion in your Jeremiah proof text is that the Prophet is just speaking in hyperbole.
Why is that not a reasonable option?
Marshal:
You don't even have an alternative understanding of any of the verses I've cited, which is why you won't get down and get busy providing them.
But of course, I have, as you've now seen. And as you SHOULD know as I've given these answers before. Some of the main errors in your reading comprehension (that I've offered before AS and WHEN I explained why I disagree with YOUR personal little human traditions and interpretations) come from:
1. The assumption that the Bible is something like a rulings book where, IF one finds a line that says something that you personally think is a "teaching" or a moral "truth," THEN you know the truth of that topic, because of a line in the bible. That's a disservice to respectfully honoring the text of the biblical authors.
2. Ignoring the often likelihood of figurative language that is often used in biblical texts/passages and presuming it should be understood more or less literally, because it fits with your human traditions.
3. And the inverse is true as well: Assuming some lines in the Bible (especially those from Jesus) are meant to be figurative, when the more rationally consistent understanding is that he meant that line more or less literally.
And real quick: Dealing with your next, Psalm 51 passage. In context (including the explanatory header at the top of the text):
A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba. [and murdered her husband, I'd add]
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
WHO is David literally speaking of? "Have mercy ON ME, O God,"
David is literally berating HIMSELF for a truly awful bit of behavior and abuse of his power, wealth and privilege (again, noting who the villain is here!). He's not saying that ALL fetuses are "sinful from conception..." He's speaking of himself. AND, he's clearly engaging in hyperbole in his penance and grief (after getting caught and called out).
WHY is hyperbole not the most rational explanation here, rather than this mythic "sin nature" you personally believe in?
Marshal:
I want him to PROVE the verses I cite don't stand as evidence for the principles he doesn't want to believe are Biblical.
Once again, and to be more specific and direct, it would depend on what you mean by "are Biblical..."
Do you mean, "Was Jesus recorded as saying, 'there is no one good but God..."?
Of course, that line is in the Bible.
Do you mean, "Therefore, there are objectively NO good humans..." That is NOT biblical, as the Bible itself records instances of good humans. Further, it's not reality, as we can SEE good people in our lives every day. Or at least, I know good people, as good is defined and understood. I hope you know good people. If you don't, I guarantee they're around and perhaps you're just blind to them. Ask a trans person, they can almost certainly point some out to you.
You'll see that Dan fails to meet the challenge already. I'll be provided a direct rejection of his failure later today.
As you can see with his submissions I've published, he leaves it as assumption. But literary form is really irrelevant, because metaphor, hyperbole, figurative language, poetry...none of it matters to the lesson being conveyed. If it did, I wouldn't have added such verses to the list of verses in my post.
That’s a given.
C
That’s his MO. He bases his position on an unproven assumption, and argues from there. He'll simply announce that his assumption is “reality” and doesn’t need to be scrutinized, let alone proven.
C
A. Your jihad against “evangelicals” is showing. But, yes the NT does contain all kinds of doctrinal and practice guidelines for what was becoming Christianity. More so than that is what we learn about being adopted into YHYH’s Kingdom as an heir and how to live life as a believer in a world which is hostile to believers.
Your mistakes are assuming that Art or I are committed to whatever you define as “Evangelical” over our commitment to follow Christ, and that we agree 100% with whatever you think “Evangelicals” believe.
In any case, as Art says, it’s irrelevant.
B. I guess it depends on what you mean by “primarily”. Clearly Jesus came first to the Jews and that included their leaders. He said things that angered them, yet to suggest that His ministry was somehow defined by these disagreements seems to be placing an undue importance on this disagreement. Obviously some of Jesus’ followers were Pharisees and Paul used his position as a Pharisee to legitimize his ministry. Like many things, this is a simplistic view of Jesus’ ministry seemingly driven by your a priori commitment to frame everything through the lens of oppressor/oppressed.
C. No. Jesus clearly had His agenda and used His disagreement with them to forward His agenda and YHWH’s plan.
C
Craig/anonymous said...
"The problem with this diversion is that it assumes (without proof) that the text in question is automatically figurative. Why does he assume this without proof? Because it seems that way to him."
As you can see there is no automatic assumption. Rather I consider the text, the context of the day, the context of Jesus' ministry, the very real context of the very real clash between Jesus and the Pharisees and the rich and the powerful, and the context of reality, where in this world we know there are observably good people as good as normally defined. Given all that context it is far and away more reasonable to think that the claim that there is no one good is hyperbole, or figurative in some way.
And yes it seems that way to me. Just as it seems to you all, for some reason, in spite of all the reasons not to think it (including reality), that we should take this passage or line literally (that there are no good people). So what's the difference? The point remains: when you all assume that it should be taken literally, you do so subjectively and without objective proof that you are correct. Do you agree with that simple observable reality?
Dan
Craig, arguing against reality in a strange little bit of fluffy nonsense, said ...
"I’d ask Dan to prove his claim, but his “proof” would be that he knows “good people” because he’s seen them do things he subjectively defines as “good”."
The proofs:
1. The word "good" has a definition, one that's common sense and easily understood, including as it relates to people.
2. We ALL know people who are good by this common standard definition. In the name of God, do you NOT think you know any good people? Do you understand how deeply disturbed that sounds? How pathetic..?
3. In the Bible Jesus and others recognized the reality of good people and referred to them. It is an accepted thing and reality to Jesus, according to his recorded text, that there are good people. Do you not understand that?
Therefore,
given that words have meanings,
that we understand the meaning of the word "good",
that we all recognize people who are good as we understand the word,
and that Jesus and other biblical authors recognize the reality of good people...
Given all that, it is rational to acknowledge: yes of course, there are good people in the world.
God have mercy, conversation does not have to be this difficult, friends.
Dan
Got chores to do before commencing with the shredding. But while I have a moment, I would point Dan to the post itself to observe example of what I requested. Each individual point is comprised of five parts:
1. The specific Biblical translation I'm using (assumed after stating it in the first example). (NIV)
2. The book in which the verse is found.
3. The chapter of the book in which the verse is found.
4. The verse number.
5. The actual verse itself.
These five points provide the source of the evidence my examples constitute and to rebut them requires the same. How hard is it to provide this information for the sake of clarity and the ease of verification. It would be hard to believe I would need to spell this out were it not for the fact that it's Dan with whom I'm engaged in discourse and Dan believes he can do what he likes while pretending to be respectful, adult and acting in good faith. Providing this info is far more important that wading through Dan's personal opinions, as I would expect that his personal opinions are based on specific verses/passages as are all my positions.
So, from here on out, I insist that Dan makes this extreme effort without comment of any kind as to why he chose not to thus far. This isn't a case of me asking for that which I'm not myself providing.
I have to go. The Mrs. beckons.
So when we look at the word "good" in this passage, we learn that the Greek word is "agathos". What is interesting about this word is that it's meaning changes depending on who it is being applied to. When applied to humans, It means "beneficial, useful, upright, righteous, or intrinsically good in character and quality.". What is interesting is the part about "righteous, or intrinsically good in character", because the entirety of Scripture seems to suggest that humans, post early Genesis are not intrinsically good.
When YHWH created the Greek word used for "good" is Kalos which means "outward beauty, suitability, or something functioning perfectly as designed.".
Humans are described with the word Kalos which is translated as "beautiful, fine, or good in quality".
So, humans were Created Kalos, yet Jesus term is translated as agathos. Which, is nothing else strongly suggests that something about humans is different in nature and quality between Creation and the 1st century.
Where things get interesting, in when agathos is applied to YHWH. When describing YHWH it signifies ultimate, complete, and unblemished righteousness. Since the passage in question is describing YHWH, it seems unlikely that Jesus was suggesting that humans as the ultimate, complete, unblemished, or righteous.
At a very minimum, this suggests strongly that Jesus is communicating the God form of agathos, rather than the human form. So, at best we are talking about two different "versions" of "good".
It seems foundational that one would want a handle on the word agathos, what it means in different contexts, and when applied to YHWH. The shallow, simplistic, person might simply focus on the English word "good" (which also has different meanings in different contexts) and conclude that the "good" that the human is trying to achieve and the "good" that Jesus uses to describe YHWH are exactly the same thing, yet even a cursory bit of digging reveals that it's not that simplistic.
With this information one might render Jesus quote this way. "there is no one who is ultimately complete, unblemished, and righteous, but YHWH."
It seems ridiculous to suggest that Jesus is promising the rich man that he will also be "complete, unblemished, and righteous" by merely doing a "good deed".
This quick look at the agathos seems to make it reasonable to conclude that the rich man was looking for the human meaning of agathos, while Jesus was making a claim about YHWH.
"Of course, that line is in the Bible."
It is in the Bible and it is attributed to Jesus, Himself. So it seems like we should probably start by trying to understand what Jesus meant in the context of the time, and conversation. To do otherwise seems a grave injustice to the text. To adopt a simplistic "good means good" in exactly the same way regardless of how it is used seems like a poor place to start. Likewise, to compare the goodness of a human to the goodness of YHWH seems unfair or foolish.
"Do you mean, "Therefore, there are objectively NO good humans..." "
If the question is re worked to take the meaning of agathos as used to describe YHWH into account, it would read more like; "Are there any who are the ultimate, complete, and posses unblemished righteousness?".
Given that, I'd then ask the following. Please tell me which human is ultimate, complete, and possesses unblemished righteousness?
Further, we then have to take this question within the larger context of Scripture which has plentiful references to humans not being intrinsically "good". Paul seems relevant, where he refers to himself (one selected and commissioned by Jesus, (confirmed by a miracle) to take The Gospel to the gentile world as the "chief of sinners". Paul doesn't seem to see himself as "good", yet Dan presumes to determine who is really good?
"That is NOT biblical"
Except that it is Biblical.
"as the Bible itself records instances of good humans."
By all means, prove that the "good" in the original language means exactly the same as agathos in the passage describing YHWH. I'll wait. The problem is this simplistic hunch that the word translated in English as "good" meant exactly the same thing that 21st century Dan wants it to mean.
"Further, it's not reality, as we can SEE good people in our lives every day."
We see fallen, imperfect, sinful, people who sometimes do things that we subjectively perceive as good even though we have absolutely no way to know if the motivation for the acts is good, bad, selfish, or indifferent. You seem to be judging the intrinsic goodness of individuals by their external works. Thankfully, YHWH does not judge as you do.
"Or at least, I know good people, as good is defined and understood."
This, this is the key right here. Nothing else really matters more than this sentence. YOU, know people who YOU see do things that YOU think are "good" based on YOUR individual, subjective, biased, prejudiced, worldview. Then YOU categorize those people as intrinsically good (remember that's agathos as applied to humans) based on a small portion of their works, that YOU see.
As usual, it's all focused and centered around YOU, YOUR experience, and YOUR subjective reasoning abilities. Not to mention your poor memory.
Clarity is rarely something Dan seeks to provide. His regular practice if snipping a bit from a verse, stripping it of context, failing to provide a reference, and using it as a proof text, is legendary.
"Given all that context it is far and away more reasonable to think that the claim that there is no one good is hyperbole, or figurative in some way."
You do understand that piling conjecture upon conjecture is not proof in any real sense, do you not? This is just you making multiple assumptions based on unproven premises. For example, what objective proof do you have that Jesus' answer to what seems a genuine question from a Jew who clearly wants to follow Torah Law and wants to enter into YHWH's Kingdom, is actually some sort of larger commentary on the "rich and powerful"? Jesus clearly indicated that what he sought (entrance into the Kingdom of YHWH) was for him.
"And yes it seems that way to me."
"it seems that way to me" isn't proof. It's not evidence. It's not even data in any meaningful sense. It's just you piling assumptions on presumptions and coming up with eisegesis that just coincidentally aligns with your worldview.
I think Art is looking for something a little more objective, and a lot less simplistic.
1. Sure there is. There is also a shitload of evidence, scholarship, and experts who provided the resources to deal with the majority of that.
2. The existence of other examples of figurative language in Scripture is irrelevant to the discussion of this specific passage. The you, personally, have decided that this passage is somehow figurative means nothing. Again, the sheer volume of scholarship and resources from experts (at least relative to you) means that we don't have to blindly accept Dan's unproven hunches.
3. Well, that is quite the claim. Have you personally examined every possible resource and personally determined your claim to be True? Why should we believe this incredible claim?
3a. Even if your claim was True, that doesn't mean that the vast resources available to us are worthless in determining things like this.
3b. What sources and experts did you consult before making this incredible claim?
3c. Even if we can't achieve perfection, we can (in these matters) use the resources available to us to draw conclusions with a high degree of accuracy.
Marshal...
"Got chores to do before commencing with the shredding."
You've cited a verse and your personal human reasoning why a literal interpretation of that one line makes sense to you, personally.
I've cited the same line and the context and multiple biblical and commonsense rational reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally, including basic reality.
What could you possibly think there is to "shred..."? What would make your personal human opinion the only possible way to understand that line?
Dan
FWIW, AI (in response to a Google search) gives us this.
"Biblical scholars do not treat Jesus’ statement in Mark 10:18—“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone”—as a piece of figurative language or metaphor. Instead, mainstream scholarship analyzes the verse as a rhetorical challenge, a theological correction, or a christological puzzle regarding how early texts view Jesus’ identity."
Critical/Historical Perspective: Scholars such as Bart Ehrman suggest this verse reflects an older, lower christology where Jesus sharply distinguishes himself from God, implying he did not view himself as co-equal with God or morally absolute in the way God is.
Apologetic/Orthodox Perspective: Scholars such as Brant Pitre argue that Jesus is using a Socratic or rabbinic leading question. Rather than denying his own goodness, Jesus is pressing the interlocutor (the rich young ruler) to realize the full weight of what he is saying: if Jesus truly is good, and only God is good, the questioner is implicitly recognizing a divine identity in front of him.
Rhetorical/Pedagogical Focus: Most commentators agree Jesus aims to shatter the young man's superficial view of human righteousness and self-salvation, shifting the focus from human achievement to God's absolute standard.
https://www.gotquestions.org/why-do-you-call-me-good.html
https://entrustedtothedirt.com/2024/07/18/why-does-jesus-say-no-one-is-good-but-god-alone/
https://entrustedtothedirt.com/2024/07/18/why-does-jesus-say-no-one-is-good-but-god-alone/
https://thelutherancolumn.com/2025/05/31/no-one-is-good-but-god-alone-the-humility-divinity-of-christ-in-mark-1018/
https://www.bibleref.com/Mark/10/Mark-10-18.html
https://puritanboard.com/threads/mark-10-18-good-only-a-predicate-for-god.106310/
The closest I've gotten to this being figurative language is that it is actually Jesus showing the RYR that He IS YHWH. But I can't believe that you mean or agree with that.
Lindsey Clancy, good person or not good person?
Craig, missing the point of the passage in question (at least in part), asked...
For example, what objective proof do you have that Jesus' answer to what seems a genuine question from a Jew who clearly wants to follow Torah Law and wants to enter into YHWH's Kingdom, is actually some sort of larger commentary on the "rich and powerful"?
Once again (and now in more detail), Mark 10 BEGINS with the ongoing conflict between Jesus' way of Grace and Welcome and the Pharisees' way of legalism and exclusion. Right before this passage that Marshal cites, we have the further contrast of the children being kept from Jesus and Jesus being indignant and saying LET the children come to me, for the realm of God is made up of such as them - helpless, right-less, often ignored and overlooked children, NOT the rich and powerful and Pharisees that the people of the day would have generally presumed to be the caretakers of the "kingdom of God..."
THEN, we get to the passage in question (outfitted often times with the title, "The Rich, and the Kingdom of God...") (verses 17-23 from the NIV, to appease Marshal's new decree)
As Jesus started on his way, a [rich] man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
You know the commandments:
‘You shall not murder,
you shall not commit adultery,
you shall not steal,
you shall not give false testimony,
you shall not defraud,
honor your father and mother.’”
“Teacher,” the rich man declared (almost certainly lying),
“all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Jesus looked at him and loved him.
“One thing you lack,” he said.
“Go, SELL EVERYTHING you have and
GIVE TO THE POOR,
and you will have treasure in heaven.
Then come, follow me.”
At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad,
because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples,
“How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
THERE is the lesson that Jesus (not me) brings to the conclusion of this little story. NOT that all humans are evil/not good, but the conflict between wealth/power vs the Realm of God.
This is precisely a passage about the problems of wealth,
in the context of a passage about being humble as a child
in the context of Jesus' ongoing battle with the Pharisees and their abuse of power and wealth and privilege.
It's not like I'm inserting some cryptic, secret meaning in my explanation. It's right there in the text.
As to any kind of objective and authoritative statement that it can ONLY be considered this obvious understanding, once again and as always, NONE of us can objectively prove the authors' intents in stories like these. It's whether it's reasonably obvious given the text, context and reality.
Once again, the reality is that we ALL know good people. I believe even Craig has (reluctantly and with caveats) allowed that (something like), "well, yes, of course, if you want to push it, yes, I know people who would be called good who lead apparently good lives..." (What a peach you must be to be married to!)
Is your wife a good person, Craig? Do you know ANY good people, as good is understood, definitionally?
Craig...
"So it seems like we should probably start by trying to understand what Jesus meant in the context of the time, and conversation."
Agreed, which is precisely what I'm doing here.
Craig...
"To do otherwise seems a grave injustice to the text. "
Agreed. That's what I'm doing here.
Craig...
"To adopt a simplistic "good means good" in exactly the same way regardless of how it is used seems like a poor place to start."
Agreed, once again, that's precisely what I'm doing here. Likewise to adopt a simplistic "Jesus said, 'No one is good, therefore no one is good'" is a poor place to start, too. Given the text, the context, and reality.
Craig...
" Likewise, to compare the goodness of a human to the goodness of YHWH seems unfair or foolish."
Indeed. Which is why I'm not doing that. I'm doing quite the opposite: stating clearly that a perfect Almighty God IS a perfect Almighty God and humans are not that. To try to suggest that to be good one has to be like a perfect Almighty God, that's bullshit, nonsense, and a great disservice to the text. Do you understand?
Dan
Dan, your ability to ignore virtually everything and simply impose your narrative on a thread is impressive. Especially your choice to ignore what I’ve said over and over on this subject in favor of personal attacks disguised as pity or some BS.
The problem with your whole hunch is the very end of Jesus’ story. For a second time Jesus makes it clear that the Kingdom of YHWH is absolutely open for both the RYR, and “the rich”. You just want to make it about doing the right works, not about anything else.
As one of “the rich”, your refusal to do as you claim Jesus demands undercuts your whole premise.
But that’s never bothered you.
Craig...
"This, this is the key right here. Nothing else really matters more than this sentence. YOU, know people who YOU see do things that YOU think are "good" based on YOUR individual, subjective, biased, prejudiced, worldview. Then YOU categorize those people as intrinsically good (remember that's agathos as applied to humans) based on a small portion of their works, that YOU see.
As usual, it's all focused and centered around YOU, YOUR experience, and YOUR subjective reasoning abilities."
The reality of good people, is something normal people can see in the world all around us, hopefully you do, but you tell me. The reality of good people IS a central part of this discussion and the problem that you all have insofar as y'all appear to not want to acknowledge that simple observable reality.
It's not at all centered around me, it's the human experience. We all know good people. Jesus knew good people (at least if you want to take his words seriously and even literally) and said so. It's not like a weird strange thing unique to me and Jesus to note the reality of good people. Again it is observable and objectively factual... As good is typically defined. But let's define it further.
You try to dismiss the notion of good people as, "Well, sure, there might be some people who do apparently, perhaps, maybe, good things, perhaps. Sometimes maybe, possibly, but we don't really know." Bullshit. That's graceless legalism and it's hellish man.
Good people are beyond just someone who occasionally does something good. It's people with empathy and kindness and compassion and integrity and such people really do exist, no matter how hard it seems for you to wrap your mind around. Craig, are you not at least in some way a good person? If you're not a good person then why should we take your words seriously?
Dan
Dan, you’ve mistaken the intensity of your convictions for the validity of your conclusions. Nothing in your argument rises above personal certainty dressed up as analysis, and the more you elaborate, the clearer it becomes that you’re arguing from emotion, not reason. At this point, Shithead Dan is the only way to refer to you that accurately captures the level of thought you’re bringing. If you want to keep repeating yourself, you’ll have to do it without expecting me to treat your certainties as evidence.
As anticipated, Dan fills the comment section with blather and very little "hard data" or "known, accepted data" or whatever the hell it is he's calling it now when he's demanding "proof" from us.
I also noticed he stated I "decreed" the use of the NIV. I did not. I simply showed how I provided my source in its totality by including the translation from which my citations were drawn. To the extent that I "decreed" anything, that comment showed what I had already "decreed" by asking for chapter and verse, and my example shows what that actually looks like. He had, until that point, provided only the Book and Chapter and what may have been merely a paraphrase of the actual verse, which I certainly don't want and which he's certainly done many, many times. Given his demands for "proof" for that which I say, to not be as precise in presenting what he expects to be taken as "proof" for his position is not the mark of one engaging in "good faith" discourse.
From this point I will now begin my response to Dan's weak attempts, beginning with...
As always. I understand that you have a hunch which you’ve stated as if your hunch is a forgone conclusion. I’ll simply note that my brief exploration of the word translated good, deals with your problem and provides an explanation.
C
Your entire hunch is centered on YOU and YOUR observations.
“You try to dismiss the notion of good people…”
Well, I guess if you’re going to ignore things, make shit up, and misrepresent what I actually said, you might as well go big, right?
I’ll simply note that you’ve (from what I’ve seen so far) ignored the entirety of what I provided regarding the word translated as “good” and how it literally solves your insurmountable problem, nor have you quoted my to support your misrepresentation. Neither is surprising.
As I’ve said multiple times before, I’m a sinful person who through the grace of YHWH and the Holy Spirit tries to be as good as I can be. Yet, I resonate more with Paul’s humility than your arrogance.
I’ve never asked you to take my words seriously. Unlike you and your troll, I don’t crave validation from people I don’t know.
C
September 9, 2026 at 3:06 PM
"Setting aside your emotional and arrogant bad faith responses...,"
Right off, you arrogantly project and believe you're responding calmly and in good faith. I've confirmed you don't know what "good faith discourse" is or looks like, and it's more than a little presumptuous that you think you can tell my mood by my comments. I've no need to get "emotional", Nancy.
"...let's look at Mark 10. But any good student of any text, especially the Bible, knows that it's always important to consider the context of any one given passage. Whether you're willing to acknowledge that or not, it's reality."
Neither have you demonstrated you're in any way a "good" student of Scripture, and that's why we're having discussions such as this one. A cursory look at your comments do not indicate you have a grasp of the context from which my citations come, and you've long ago shown you have no familiarity with "reality", "rationality", "reason" and a host of other such things. Don't waste the keystrokes with such comedy.
"And what IS the context?"
It's not what you about to present next.
"1. The ongoing feud with/attacks from the rich and powerful, including and especially the Pharisees. Mark 10 (and the passages before) begins with this..."
It's disturbing this fixation you have with the notion of Jesus being locked in constant battle with the Pharisees and/or the "rich and oppressive".
"Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
Some Pharisees came
and tested him
by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”"
This is not in any way the context you think it is. I'll be more precise soon.
"Much like you, in their arrogance, they are trying to lay a "scripture trap" for Jesus, thinking they can catch him in a legalistic trap for failing to be as legalistic as they are/were."
Why you insist on projecting "arrogance" on to me is also an indication of emotional disturbance on your part, if not disorder.
"This IS an ongoing theme in Jesus' story, it is the context which Jesus is teaching and Jesus' responses everywhere are very much, at least in part, responses to the Pharisees and their abusive and graceless legalism. Thus, when Jesus later responds to the rich young man, he's responding to the wealthy man AND to the Pharisees."
Sheer nonsense. Can you provide a passage where Jesus refers to the Pharisees without the Pharisees being present? Jesus spoke of or to them only when they sought to question Jesus on anything. Early on, they were merely asking why Jesus was behaving in a way which suggested disregard for their oral law. Even when they began to plot against Him, Jesus wasn't concerning Himself much with them at all. You want to make it seem like it as a constant running battle. This is you injecting your preferred narrative into the text.
"As Jesus says to the rich young man, "Give your money to the poor and come, follow me" in verse , it is a direct slap in the face of the Pharisees, who, as it is said in Luke 16, were "lovers of money." Indeed, they were arrogant, snide lovers of money, given that description ("The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.")"
This is irrelevant and did not even come during Luke's description of the Rich Young Ruler, which occurs in Chapter 18. Moreover, if you wish to pretend Jesus had a problem with wealth, just a few verses prior, He describes how the wealthy should use their wealth, and it doesn't include giving it all away. That aside, bringing into the discussion verses with no relevance don't count as evidence of another understanding of the verse in question.
"THAT is the context of this later (in Mark 10) exchange between the rich young man who wouldn't surrender his wealth to the poor and Jesus."
Here again we see that you read into the passage that which serves your marxism, but doesn't indicate a grasp of the context.
At the beginning of Mark 10, we see the Pharisees questioning Jesus on divorce. Right after Jesus affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman, which He confirms is the reason God made us male and female, we get to Verse 10, which reads, "When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this." So they were in the house and there's no mention of any kind that the Pharisees went inside with them. None. By Verse 13, the people were bringing their little children to Jesus, the disciples rebuked them and Jesus told them not to hinder them. That's Jesus, His disciples, some parents and their kids. No Pharisees. Likewise, there's no mention of any Pharisees in the vicinity of Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler. In ever telling of this episode (including the previous episode with the little children) in each Gospel according to Matthew, Mark or Luke, there's nothing in the text which mentions the presence of the Pharisees. That doesn't mean they weren't there, but as there's no mention of them after the divorce discussion and up to and including the RYR episode, one must strain to suppose the Jesus was doing anything relative to the Pharisees at all, no matter how badly you need Jesus's ministry to be about "oppression".
"Just as a starting point."
Not really much of one.
Marshal:
It's disturbing this fixation you have with the notion of Jesus being locked in constant battle with the Pharisees and/or the "rich and oppressive".It's disturbing this fixation you have with the notion of Jesus being locked in constant battle with the Pharisees and/or the "rich and oppressive".
In the Gospel of Matthew, the Pharisees (not to mention yet the Sadducees and the "teachers of the law" and priests and chief priests, all who represent different aspects of Jewish leadership and are often in conflict with each other, and yet all conspire together with the Pharisees to ultimately kill Jesus) are mentioned something like 30 times (fyi: Matthew is 28 chapters long. Jesus doesn't start his ministry until chapter 4, so that's the equivalent of over one mention per chapter in Jesus' ministry.)
The Sadducees are mentioned 8 times in Matthew, fyi.
The Pharisees are mentioned 28 times in the Gospel of Luke and its 24 chapters which, again, Jesus doesn't start his ministry until chapter 4, so 20 chapters of Jesus' ministry with 28 mentions of Pharisees.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=pharisee&version=NIV
How often are gay folks mentioned in Matthew? Zero times.
How often is "adulter" (adultery, adulterer, etc) mentioned in Matthew? 8.
How often are "the lazy poor" mentioned in Matthew? 0.
Etc.
I mention the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees (and, by extension, the Saduccees and high priest) because that conflict is THE prevalent theme in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life. Is there ANYONE else that Jesus has regular conflicts with? Is there ANYONE else (or any other group) that Jesus speaks so harshly against?
Well, maybe the rich and powerful, but even then, not AS much.
Yes, he had some conflict (to a smaller scale) with his own disciples and his own family and his own hometown, but none of them were regularly setting traps for him so they could justify executing him, right?!!
If you google "what was Jesus central conflict?" the AI answer is the predictable: "The central conflict in Jesus' life was the collision between His divine mission and the religious and political establishment of His time."
If I mention Jesus' constant conflict with the rich and powerful, the Pharisees, Sadducees and high priest, it's because he HAD constant conflict with them, in nearly every chapter, AND they were the ones who constantly tried trapping him and ultimately conspired together to have him executed by the state.
Why is it wrong to point that out?
Can you at least see how that strikes me as strange that you seem to want to downplay that very pivotal and ongoing conflict?
If nothing else, the distinct difference between the Pharisees' legalism and Jesus' way of Grace that WAS/IS the Gospel are made quite black and white thanks to the Pharisees playing the foils to Jesus' actual good news message.
Oh, and I meant to say that not ALL of those mentions of Pharisees were in a negative context. There may be 2 or 3 (Nicodemus, Gamaliel??) that were more positive (or at least, less negative). But the vast majority of these interactions all are consistently very combative and portray the Pharisees negatively.
You know that, right?
September 9, 2026 at 3:28 PM
"2. So, in your proof text verse, we see this exchange:"
You abuse the concept of "proof text" here. There's no context from which any of my citations are pulled which in any way diminishes the reason I cite them, nor negates the meaning the verses in isolation convey with regard to man's sin nature.
"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered.
“No one is good—except God alone."
You know the commandments...
The question that arises is what is Jesus meaning by this line (which, in the story, is sort of a throwaway line, not the central point of the story*)?"
Wow! You thought that was the question? Who told you? Oh yeah...that's the point of this post>
What's more, its not a "throwaway line", as Jesus doesn't present any anywhere in Scripture. Indeed, I don't think you can find an example of any of the Gospel authors bothering to include any "throwaway lines" Jesus might have uttered in their presence.
" In looking at the parallel text in Matthew 19, it reads this way...
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
IS Jesus trying to say that there is no sense in which typical humans are ever rightly considered "good..."? OR, is he irrationally saying, "Unless you're perfect as an almighty God, you can't be good..."?"
There's nothing whatsoever "irrational" about stating a fact, which is that there is no one good but God.
"Both of those fail the smell test. It's not a rational claim to say that Unless you're as good as a GOD, you can't be considered good. That's crazy talk."
No. It's not. And you believing it is because you think your works make you "good" is not evidence the statement of my Lord is not the expression of a factual definition.
"There's a difference between DIVINE PERFECTION and basic human goodness."
There's a difference between the true definition of "good" and the colloquial use of the word between human beings their reference to what they regard as the pleasing character of other humans.
You're straining gnats and swallowing camels to focus on that one line and thereby miss the point of the story. It would seem to me.
More...
Marshal:
You abuse the concept of "proof text" here. There's no context from which any of my citations are pulled which in any way diminishes the reason I cite them, nor negates the meaning the verses in isolation convey with regard to man's sin nature.
Proof-texting is the practice of taking a single line or short passage out of its original context and using it to support a specific belief, argument, or rule
You're literally proof texting, identifying a passage (in this case, ripped totally out of the context of the story) that you think supports a specific argument/theory you hold.
Would you agree that this "no one is good but God," in THIS story is a throwaway line, NOT the central point of this whole exchange with the rich man who chose not to give to the poor and follow Jesus?
Also, would you agree that this passage has a man asking Jesus directly how to be saved and Jesus' literal and quite clear direct answer is NOT "blood atonement" but instead, directly, "Sell your stuff. Give to poor. Follow me..."?
Marshal:
There's nothing whatsoever "irrational" about stating a fact, which is that there is no one good but God.
Question begging fallacy. Lose.
Marshal:
And you believing it is because you think your works make you "good" is not evidence the statement of my Lord is not the expression of a factual definition.
I'm not saying "works make you good."
Do you understand that? Is that what you THOUGHT I was saying? If so, that points to poor reading comprehension problem.
I'm saying
1. That there ARE good people in the world, as good is typically understood.
Do you disagree?
2. Good people are recognized by their character, not by their actions.
3. Their character, on the other hand, is reflected in their actions.
Put another way: Good people are people who have integrity, who are compassionate, who are empathetic, who are kind, who are respectful of others... all of that as a general rule, as part of their nature.
NOT by their actions.
But people who are kind, compassionate, respectful, etc, act out in ways/actions that are helpful, giving, etc.
Do you understand that distinction?
Do you understand that this line of thinking is how people commonly recognize good people?
Do you honestly not know anyone like that?
https://psychcentral.com/health/how-do-you-know-if-you-are-a-good-person
Things like this are what rational people mean by "good people" and why we recognize the reality of good people as good as typically understood. What is wrong with this definition/explanation?
Also what does it even MEAN to you all that there are no good people? What does that look like? How do you define that? Is it just the case that no mere mortal is perfect like an Almighty God and therefore there is no one good? Again that's clinically insane.
Dan
Marshal...
"There's a difference between the true definition of "good" and the colloquial use of the word between human beings"
The true definition of good? Do you have some hidden, arcane, unknown to the rest of the world, super secret definition of good that we don't know? The one TRUE definition???!!
Pray tell, what is it?
Dan
I may have accidentally deleted myself somewhere in what follows. There should be quite enough to make my point and indicate how Dan doesn't have one.
"Do you think that God expects mere mortals to be as perfect as a God?"
Uh...yeah...Leviticus 19:2 “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.'" (NIV)
Would He tell the people to be holy if they already were? Would Jesus say there is no one good but God of anyone was? It is we who use the word "good" in a throwaway manner in describing other sinners. We don't mean it as it truly is defined by Jesus because of course no one is God or like Him.
"Do you think that God expects humans to create whole universes from scratch? That would suggest an insane god, not a perfectly Good God."
The question indicates insane desperation from one who has no way of refuting the fact that Jesus said there is no one good but God and thus that we are all sinful by nature.
"Rathe, in the context of the story, and the day, and the context of Jesus' ongoing dispute with the Pharisees who "loved the praise of humans" and with an eye towards the legalistic Pharisees who piled rules and rules upon people only to condemn and condemn them (sound familiar??" sounds like you ") and who were "lovers of money and sneered at Jesus" and his rejection of money as a measure of anything positive...
...AND with an eye towards the rich man, himself, in a society that regularly assumed wealth meant you were blessed and beloved of God and that the poor must have done something wrong (again, the context of attitudes of the day is important), who somewhat smugly said, "All of those commandments, I've kept from childhood,"
You smugly assert he smugly said that, just as you smugly assert "OF COURSE" there are good people!
"IN THAT CONTEXT, is it NOT more reasonable that he's removing the planks of arrogance, privilege, abuse and wealth from both the Pharisees and the rich, putting them in their place and reminding the blessed poor who he'd come to preach good news to that he was on their side?"
No. It's far more reasonable that Jesus was affirming the truth about what "good" means and that there is no one good but God. It is also reasonable and just as true that He was identifying Himself as God in a manner similar to, "Why do you call me 'good'? You have no idea what that means in reference to Me!"
"That, to me, is the obvious answer. And it's not just me who would offer that response."
No shit. But you have no evidence for that marxist, liberation theology claim. It's just something you repeatedly assert ad nauseum.
"3. Further, when considering context of this story, we are well-served to remember the context of Jesus' ongoing stories/teachings warning against the privileges and abuses of wealth and teaching in favor of allying with the poor and marginalized, this story of the privileged rich man who presumed he followed "all these commandments from my youth" and the context of the abusive and arrogant Pharisees who loved money and sneered at Jesus' teachings on this:"
You're just drooling. We've already seen you abused the Luke 16:14 by forcing it into this story. We've also seen that Jesus didn't rebuke the RYR for saying he kept all those commandments since childhood. Indeed, Jesus said, "You still lack one thing." (Lk 18:22, Mk 10:2, Mt 19:20-2). This would...or should to an honest man...suggest that Jesus regarded him as sincere in his lifetime of obeying the commandments, at least as well as could any average dude.
"In THAT context, we have this story of Jesus loving this sad privileged man who was enslaved to his pride and wealth. The point of THIS story is NOT the throwaway line about "why do you call me good, no one good but God" but the denouement of the rich man walking away from salvation and Jesus' warning of the trappings of wealth, saying that it is hard, nigh unto impossible, for the rich to be part of the realm of God. THAT is the point of the story, not that God is way more good than humans OR that all humans are "not good.""
Despite your self-serving editorializing and embellishing of the story, we do not know what becomes of the rich young man. Just because he might have thought it was a tough ask in order to be saved, it doesn't mean he didn't come to understand the true point and thus became
extraordinarily generous. It would be absurd to believe that Jesus cared about the dude being wealthy as opposed to helping the dude to understand that it's not his "good deeds" which save him...which means that giving up all his scratch couldn't save him, either...but to put all his faith and trust in Jesus...to follow him, which includes how Jesus encourages the wealthy to live, which was the point of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Lk 16:1-13) right before we see your Pharisees sneering at Jesus. (v.14)
September 9, 2026 at 3:41 PM
"So, where you blindly and blandly demand, "if the verses don't mean what a plain reading of them suggests they mean, what else could they possibly mean?" I've offered a solidly biblical, solidly contextual, solidly reasonable explanation of the story (as you would know if you'd been reading for understanding all these years)."
No. You haven't. You can't just type words on the screen and insist they be regarded as "a solidly biblical, solidly contextual, solidly reasonable explanation of the story", especially given I'm not looking for your wacky misrepresentation of the entire chapter, but only evidence (Book, Chapter and Verse nowhere to be found) to show that "No one is good but God" means something other than "No one is good but God". Everything you've posted thus far is superfluous and irrelevant to that question.
"Jesus used the "no one is good but God" as a stab at both the rich man and the Pharisees, who both clearly thought they WERE good... and NOT as an attempt to suggest that unless you were as good as a perfect God, you're not able to be "good." Again, that's crazy talk."
Yet you've posted nothing to support that claim. Jesus uses "no one is good but God" to affirm that "no one is good but God". There's absolutely nothing in the "CONTEXT" which suggests it's "a stab at both the rich man and the Pharisees". You just pulled that from your backside because you need everything to fit your marxist, liberation theology. I just read Scripture and go from there. I've inserted nothing, but inferred the most obvious message. I have no problem knowing that no one is good but God. I can't even see how anyone could wet themselves knowing that as you clearly are.
"Now, you may not find my solidly biblical, textual, contextual and rational understanding of the text believable or something you can agree with, but as a simple fact, that explanation IS a reasonable explanation of what the passage COULD mean and, in fact, does mean for many of us who in good faith believe exactly that."
Not hardly, and what people like you pretend to believe and insist on imposing on the text is not evidence of what you're imposing on the text. You're just making shit up and I can't believe there are that many people as goofy as you are who understands this chapter as you're trying to make it out to be.
"So now, the question this poses to you is, "Must I AGREE with another explanation for it to be an actual explanation?" Agree or not, that's the reality. It IS an alternative explanation for your nonsense and graceless theory, and one which, ironically, suggests you missed the point of the story ENTIRELY and came down on the side of the Pharisees and the rich man, who were the ones being rebuked."
Again, this is just you saying shit, but it's not evidence that it doesn't mean what the words Jesus said affirms. It's not an explanation that any honest person would accept as an argument for an alternative meaning you've yet to offer because you haven't made one up yet.
"But then, that tracks"
Just not in the way you need to tell yourself.
"Also, I would add the final: IF something objectively exists in the real world, then denying reality in favor of an interpretation of a Bible verse is neither rational nor biblical."
But it DOESN'T exist in the real world. That's the point and teaching of Scripture and it's why we need a Savior. Being also a universalist, as well as a marxist liberation theology kinda girl, that just doesn't work for you. Too bad.
"Clearly, there ARE good people in the world, people with good hearts, good intentions, who are loving, helpful, gracious, welcoming... in a word, Godly."
Clearly there ARE people in the world we regard as good when compared against all the those who are clearly evil, like marxist, liberation theology universalists (MLTUs) like yourself.
"Just as we can look objectively at the globe and say that the reality of a spherical earth undermines ANY attempt to try to take the flat earth passages literally, so to, the reality of good people undermines any attempt at taking "there is no one good" literally. The ONLY way to make a literal interpretation even begin to make sense is to redefine "good," but rational adults are under no obligation to go along with your new and different definition of the notion of Good.
Fair enough?"
No. You're not a rational adult, and when you use words like that you don't serve yourself well. Stop saying that, because you only embarrass yourself given your irrational method of making your unsupportable cases. For example, what evidence do you have that anyone at the time of, say, Isaiah, actually believed the earth was flat? Maybe the really stupid, but most scholarly people didn't. One source suggested around the time of Pythagoras around 500 B.C, the spherical shape of the earth was already known. I think the term is "chronological snobbery" applied to those like you who think people of old were total idiots. Only a total idiot would think so. In any case, that figures of speech, metaphor, hyperbole, poetry and the like are present in Scripture, to blow off what you don't want to believe as examples of such is intellectually lazy and certainly not the "HARD DATA" you're required to bring to bear in order to refute the plain meaning of this verse.
At this point, I'm going to take a bit of a detour on which I invite no one to join, but only to understand and take to heart. Dan takes great joy in comparing me and Craig and others on our side of the divide to the Pharisees. But look what Jesus said about them:
He replied, “Isaiah (29:13) was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[b] your own traditions!" (Mark 7:6-9)
But we just read. We don't add or subtract. We don't look as Lev 18:20 and say, "it means 'some form' of homosexuality" when nothing anywhere in the entire chapter so much as hints of any caveat or exception to the prohibition. We don't read Mark 10:18 and suppose Jesus was "taking a stab at the Pharisees and the Rich Young Ruler" just because we want to believe Jesus's main purpose was to "fight the power". We don't jam into any passage a verse from two chapters prior. We just read and let the text do the talking.
The Pharisees, only having existed about 150-165 years or so before Christ were purveyors of the Oral Law, which Jesus seems to consistently criticize by referencing what is written (the Torah). When He criticizes the Pharisees, it's for adding to the Law. None of us on this side of the divide do that. That's what Dan and his troll do. They make shit up and pretend it's Christian. (Women pastors, for instance)
Any time Dan choose to make this comparison, it's an ad hom attack of no value and less honesty.
Now I'm going to post all comments in the queue which had been piling up while I dealt with yet another technical issue. But I will continue addressing Dan's comments in the order they came in, as I've begun doing and hope to catch up quickly. I'm sure Dan will pile on as he usually does. I just hope he brings some "HARD DATA" to support subsequent objections. He's been doing a really crappy job so far and hasn't done anything to provide a better understanding of Mark 10::18
Before I go, here's another verse or two for Dan to chew on: Mark 7:15, 20-23. These also suggest man's sin nature. Those things don't come out of the Father OR the Son and I would posit it they don't come from the Holy Spirit, either.
This. Dan grounds his conclusions in himself, with nothing beyond his feelings/opinions as the final arbiter. That he can find snippets of proof texts and shoehorn them into his framework is just him being creative, nothing else.
C
Dan:
So, where you blindly and blandly demand, "if the verses don't mean what a plain reading of them suggests they mean, what else could they possibly mean?" I've offered a solidly biblical, solidly contextual, solidly reasonable explanation of the story (as you would know if you'd been reading for understanding all these years)."
Marshal...
No. You haven't. You can't just type words on the screen and insist they be regarded as "a solidly biblical, solidly contextual, solidly reasonable explanation of the story", especially given I'm not looking for your wacky misrepresentation of the entire chapter, but only evidence (Book, Chapter and Verse nowhere to be found) to show that "No one is good but God" means something other than "No one is good but God". Everything you've posted thus far is superfluous and irrelevant to that question.
He said, as he typed words on a screen.
Look, let's cut to the chase. I AM looking at the Bible which I love AND reality, which I accept and I AM seeking to follow God and I read these passages and as a point of fact in the real world, I do NOT find your interpretations plausible for a wide range of biblical, moral, rational and objectively factual reasons. You don't have to accept reality, but that IS the reality of why I disagree with your personal little human hunches.
On the other hand, you look at these passages and somehow, your traditions/interpretations make sense to YOU, personally, and mine don't make sense to you.
In other words, we disagree about interpretations, both of us doing so far what we find to be compelling reasons.
What now, then? You can't deny that I find my reasons more biblical, rational and compelling and I'm not trying to deny that you don't find your little reasons (no matter HOW irrational or morally awful or how much I think your theories would belittle and trivialize an almighty God, making your god into a pathetic whimsical bully) to be more biblical and compelling.
What then?
Who decides who is right, since neither of us can objectively prove it (at least, not if you're not willing to accept reality!). This is why your lack of a rubric or perfect pope to GIVE us the Objective Right answers undermines your certainty.
Look, I'm FINE with you saying, "I find my explanation more compelling and yours not compelling at all..." I'm just pushing back against any suggestion that your answers are "proven" until I find some way to convince you otherwise.
That's not proof. That's subjective arrogance.
September 9, 2026 at 3:45 PM
"Marshal, explain specifically what YOU MEAN by "it's biblical" in relation to your theories about human "sin natures..." That would be helpful."
Try this: Think back to every time you've insisted that the Christian principles my side has discussed are "not biblical" and what you meant by that, and reverse it.
Or just recall that you claimed specifically the principle of man's sin nature is not biblical without ever defining what you meant by "not biblical". Given that I just read, it's hard for me (or anyone else who can read) to suppose that means the principles don't exist in Scripture, especially since you've said that as well to express the same objection to the fact that "man's sin nature" is a Biblical teaching and thus "Biblical".
Try being honest. That would be helpful.
Marshal:
just recall that you claimed specifically the principle of man's sin nature is not biblical without ever defining what you meant by "not biblical". Given that I just read, it's hard for me (or anyone else who can read) to suppose that means the principles don't exist in Scripture,
That's easy.
1. I mean, first and foremost, that it's not a political given... "the Bible" doesn't at all insist upon your human theories are factually correct... the biblical authors don't insist upon that, GOD does not insist upon that. It IS your human opinion.
2. I further mean that it's certainly not objectively factual. It's literally a human interpretation. I'm pushing back against the hubris found in many conservatives that their human traditions are objectively factual and no people CAN disagree with their human opinions and traditions.
3. Further, I find the claims to be contrary to a rational good faith reading of the biblical authors. Yes, Jesus used the words "no one is good but God" BUT, Jesus also talked about the obvious reality of good people. It's not rationally possible that the claim "All people are NOT good" and "some people ARE good."
Do you recognize that this is a fundamentally irrational claim?
3A. On the other hand, given the obvious observable reality of biblical authors and speakers engaging in hyperbole and figurative language, it IS quite biblical and credible that various speakers have said "NO ONE IS GOOD!" and "As an infant, I was lying and no good!" in a hyperbolic sense, to emphasize the reality that we are indeed capable of doing wrong, without it needing to be literally true.
3B. It's "unbiblical" then, says I, because to say "no one is good," directly conflicts with Jesus claim that there ARE good people.
3C. It's further unbiblical in the sense that it's part of of this whole bad news "salvation scheme" you hold in your human tradition, in that it undermines biblical teachings of a Loving and Just God... indeed, I find it to be blasphemous, this whole,
all people are evil >
all people are deserving of eternal torture >
but God WILL save some small percentage of humanity >
IF (and only if) these "some people" are "called" by God to be saved, to accept God's grace >
for that small remnant, they will be saved by a "blood sacrifice" payment scheme...
pipeline. That whole set of conditions are antithetical to the notions of grace and a good and loving God that is spelled out biblically AND which holds ground rationally.
Now, I ask you again: what do YOU mean by "it's biblical..."?
And to reiterate: where you say...
it's hard for me (or anyone else who can read) to suppose that means the principles don't exist in Scripture,
It's one thing to say, "I can FIND in various hand picked bible passages, verses that to me promote this human evangelical theory/system..."
and it's another thing to say, "Those principles DO exist objectively in various Bible verses."
One is an acceptable theory (even if horribly irrational and not consistent with overarching biblical messages), whereas the latter is an unsupported claim that doesn't necessarily follow.
What IF it turns out that you meet God and God tells you, "No, that was not what I intended at all. Of course, there are good people. How do you not know this?" What would you say to God?
Sorry, typo. That first one should have said:
1. I mean, first and foremost, that it's not a biblical given... "the Bible" doesn't at all insist upon your human theories are factually correct... the biblical authors don't insist upon that, GOD does not insist upon that. It IS your human opinion.
September 9, 2026 at 4:35 PM
"I'll further note that you gladly allow for figurative language when it makes sense to you - hyperbole, parable, allegory, etc."
I've never denied it.
"Just today, you noted on my blog...
Verses which speak of babies telling lies
are examples of hyperbole
to get across the message regarding the reality of our sin nature.
And of course, it is. There aren't newborn babies telling lies, it's a line the author made to emphasize his sinfulness or penitent desires. And we can objectively KNOW that because of course, newborns can't talk or meaningfully form ideas in order TO tell lies."
I also noted that your bringing up this example to assert that my position hinges on taking literally what clearly isn't meant to be taken so...such as Psalm 58:3. However, the hyperbole of that verse does quite well speak to our sin nature, so thanks for the assist.
"Likewise, "four corners of the earth" are not literally describing a flat square earth. It's imagery and we can KNOW that because we can SEE that the earth is a globe."
Again, that figurative language like this, which you couldn't prove was taken literally by anyone of intelligence when it was written, has nothing to do with whether or not the Mark 10:18 is a literal expression of fact seems to be lost on you...while fancying yourself as one with exceptional reading comprehension skills.
"LIKEWISE, "no one is good but God" is an exercise in hyperbole. NO ONE compares to God in perfect goodness, because of course, not. But that doesn't mean there aren't good people."
It absolutely does, because that's the point and why it fits on the list of verses which attest to the concept of man's sin nature being Biblical. Constantly repeating this fact (another Dan Trabue "Nyuh uh) isn't "proof" that the concept isn't Biblical.
"I don't know about you...,"
No, you don't. But you're nature and character is not at all hard to see.
Dan calls himself a Christian every belief he holds is anti-God and anti-bible. He can twist Scripture into a huge pretzel all the while saying is not inerrant provided by God.
"...that such attempts to take a line literally undermine other, more rational and consistently biblical messages about God."
It undermines nothing to believe Jesus when He says there is no one good but God, except YOUR insistence that you and your kind are good people based on your own subjective criteria.
" Like the notion that God is an irrational jerk who thinks if a human mortal is not as good as an almighty God, then that human is NOT GOOD at all."
Only fake Christians like you would dare make such a blasphemous suggestion. What need have we of a Savior if we're "good"? Answer that at some point as it's another question which has been put to your without response many, many times.
I could be wrong, but given how often Dan references himself when it comes to claims he makes or his hunches about Scripture, it seems reasonable to wonder if Dan’s god isn’t Dan.
" but I know as a point of observable fact dozens of good people. Their reality undermines a literal interpretation... of course, it's figurative."
Again, it does not. And aside from the fact your perception of these alleged "good" people doesn't stand as evidence of anything other than that in your opinion, you judge them as "good", it's nothing more than you comparing them against others you do not so judge to be "good" people. That's fine. It's necessary for the purposes of communicating assessments of the character of other people and an easy shorthand for doing so. But it does not in any way mean Mark 10:18 is figurative. There's nothing in Scripture which describes Jesus as being figurative when He said it. Nothing. You just want Him to be so you can continually subjectively judge people you like as "good" for reasons which appeal to you personally.
"You ALLOW for the possibility of understanding some phrases and lines figuratively. Why is that NOT an option - even just an option that SOME people might take as the most likely option - in THIS case? And on what basis is it objectively NOT a biblical and rational option."
A desperate weasel question. Just bring evidence that Jesus was speaking figuratively. You haven't done that. That's the point of this post...I've listed verses which speak to man's sin nature making the concept a Biblical teaching. Asking me questions like this don't meet the challenge put forth to explain with evidence why an alternative understanding is more likely true, and what that alternative understanding might be. You just don't like the truth the verse conveys and your position goes no deeper than that.
"And when I say such interpretations are not biblical, I'm stating an opinion about something neither of us can prove objectively but that I believe nonetheless... "
Except that I DID prove the truth I defend objectively by listing the many verses which attest to the Biblical concept you don't like and thus insist isn't Biblical. Each verse directly attests to the concept whether hyperbole, metaphor, or figurative language is used to drive home the point. Jesus isn't doing any of that. He's making a truth claim in a most straightforward and direct way, and not as a "throwaway line" you disrespectfully need it to be, but as a very meaningful message you refuse to take to heart so that you can continue to regard yourself and your kind as "good" despite being so clearly in conflict with God's Will on a number of issues.
"...that such attempts to take a line literally undermine other, more rational and consistently biblical messages about God."
It undermines nothing to believe Jesus when He says there is no one good but God, except YOUR insistence that you and your kind are good people based on your own subjective criteria.
" Like the notion that God is an irrational jerk who thinks if a human mortal is not as good as an almighty God, then that human is NOT GOOD at all."
Only fake Christians like you would dare make such a blasphemous suggestion. What need have we of a Savior if we're "good"? Answer that at some point as it's another question which has been put to your without response many, many times.
September 9, 2026 at 4:56 PM
"Good people in the Bible:
First of all, we have Jesus assuming that there were good people...
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good,
~Luke 6"
Jesus is not identifying any particular or specific people. He's describing how a good person should behave. But even so, He's not ignoring that which it determined to be good by God as opposed to what is determined good by someone like you. You pervert God's Truth to serve your pro-homo, anti-child, marxist liberation theology universalism. One such as this is not good and to express these beliefs belies any claims you might have to your own goodness or of those you claim are among those "good" people you know. And even in the best of circumstances, it only attests to that which we actually hear and see from those we might regard as good, and that's limited. None of it erases the fact they were each born with a sin nature. For actual Christians, it merely indicates their desire to please God despite evil temptations with which they might still grapple and which likely will manifest to one degree or another given time and opportunity. Hence imperfection, hence imperfection is the evidence of one's sin nature. Thus, this verse does not mitigate that there is no one good but God. At best, it speaks to those who seek to be good.
"Likewise, he assumes there are good AND just people...
For God makes the sun rise on the evil and
on the good,
and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
~Matthew 5"
There's no such assumption here, but only speaking to the reality that sun will shine and the rain will fall regardless and those who do good evil will endure it will those who do good. We're to emulate that in our response to evil people, as the context speaks to "love for enemies". Thus, the "good" here would be allies or those of like mind and behaviors, while enemies are not. It isn't speaking to the nature of either, both of which are sinful, but it's just that one group seeks to please God and the other themselves.
Thus, this verse doesn't mitigate the fact that only God is good and you aren't.
It must be understood that the colloquial use of the word "good" is not denied God or His Son
"And again...
The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
~Matthew 12"
Same as above. Anyone who is a true Christ follower develops his nature from sinful to that which is more Christ-like. There's a conflict in the minds of some that Christians can't have a sin nature. And while Scripture speaks of renewal, Christ redeems us by his death on the cross and our sin nature is made clean. More accurately, it is simply disregarded.
How is there anything wrong in that estimation/explanation of " what else could they possibly mean?"
"The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose,
for he was a good man,
full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.
~Acts 11"
This speaks to his behavior as a believer, not his nature as a mortal man. You fail again.
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time
~Gen
Righteous also speaks to his devotion to God, not his nature as a mortal man. What's more, following the flood, “Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard” (Genesis 9:20). The account of Noah’s drunkenness and subsequent nakedness is the first recorded incident after the covenant and rainbow promise (Genesis 9:8-17). The narrative situates human failure directly after divine deliverance, underscoring that the flood judged humanity’s wickedness but did not eradicate the sin nature. You fail yet again.
"In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil
~Job 1"
Similiarly, Job's blameless and upright character do not mitigate his sin nature. Those adjectives are comparisons to others, not that he was born without a sin nature. The following describes it well. Read for understanding:
https://biblehub.com/q/how_is_job_sinless_if_all_have_sinned.htm
"A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children
~Proverbs 13"
Again, this speaks to conscious behavior, not to one's nature.
"I'm sure I could go on."
Clearly you shouldn't unless exposing your ignorance and willingness to corrupt is your purpose.
"Are you willing to acknowledge that BIBLICALLY, there are texts that say both things, that NO ONE is good but God AND that YES, there are good people?"
No, because they don't...not for the purpose of denying the truth of this Mark 10:18 verse
"And thus, to take only the irrational and unproven half (NO ONE IS good) and ignore the other texts, that is another way of being unbiblical."
Perverting those other texts in order to make them mean what you need them to mean is unbiblical. I understand the texts as they are. They do not present "good people born without a sin nature", nor that they are good at all, but only consciously doing good and striving to be good. HUGE difference.
"And, once again, regardless, it's certainly not objectively proven that there are no such thing as good people, which has been my point on this topic."
Mark 10:18 is the proof. You simply reject it because it indicts you.
"And so, once again, " what else could they possibly mean?" Lots of things, including that Jesus was engaging in clear hyperbole to make a point (contextually, to the rich and to the Pharisees, specifically)."
One could say anything is possible so long as one brings no evidence to suggest that it could be. As things stand, it can't mean anything else but that "No one is good but God". It had nothing to do with the rich or the Pharisees or the denizens of some store front Jeff St congregation. It was a stand alone fact which Jesus chose to address in that moment. Your eisegesis ain't working here.
Look, Marshal, those are all cute little personal human opinions of yours that you hold in your little head. They are very cute little opinions, subjective and not proven to be facts. They are NOT objective facts. They are YOUR interpretation, your take, nothing more than that. Do you understand that?
The question remains: WHO in the name of all that is holy and reasonable cares what YOUR personal little human opinion is?. It's YOUR opinion not objective proof. That is what I am saying.
We do not have to prove that you're wrong, all we have to do is point out how stupidly ridiculous your personal human opinions are and that they are your personal little human opinions not proof. Do you understand that?
So where you say...
"As things stand, it can't mean anything else but that "No one is good but God". "
That is nothing more than your own personal little diuretic bullshit blowing out of your brain. It's not proof. It's not anything but a personal little human opinion and a stupid one at that. You are not God! It's not your call to make, little man.
And Craig is worried about me referencing myself when I'm talking about my opinion. At least I don't confuse myself with God Almighty. You lose, Marshal.
Dan
"Because I have some time, I'll move on to your second proof text and demonstrate your misunderstanding there."
You'll pretend to, but you'll fail again.
"1. "The heart" is deceitful... right away, we can see that Jeremiah is speaking metaphorically here. "The heart" is a muscle for pumping blood. Rather, Jeremiah is metaphorically speaking of our Self, our motivations and understanding, not literally the heart."
Duh! You say that as if the point was ever lost on anyone!
"2. But even so, "the heart is "deceitful..."? "Beyond cure..."? Why say that if this is the case. There's nothing we can know at all if our Self is deceitful and twisted and hopelessly beyond cure, right?"
Wrong. "Deceitful" doesn't mean in ability to know. You know the truth about the abomination you revere, celebrate and enable, but because of the deceit in YOUR heart, you pretend otherwise.
"3. UNLESS, once again and like others, Jeremiah is merely speaking hyperbolically, emphasizing our fallen nature, our tendency to oftentimes get things wrong.Right? Isn't that the more likely option?"
No, especially given you've offered nothing but weak sauce personal opinion. He's specifically addressing the innate nature of the heart (and thus one's sin nature) to be deceitful. And the deceit is the alignment with what pleases the self over what pleases God.
"4. Again, IN CONTEXT, we see that Jeremiah allows that "blessed is the one who trusts in God" and, at least at times, worthy of "reward," for NOT being deceived beyond hope."
No one suggests that our sin nature leaves us without hope. For we Christians, our hope is in Jesus, not in ourselves. And we who put our trust in Him, even when doing so means we must reject abominations we find personally pleasing. THAT is what "trust in God" looks like. THAT is what "dying to our selves" looks like.
"CLEARLY, textually and contextually and in the real world, Jeremiah allows for the option of good humans doing the right, having good character and being good."
He's allowing for sinful humans doing what is right and developing good character pleasing to God over appeasing our own carnal desires.
"I view passages such as this much like the passage from Paul when he complains about "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.""
Where Paul affirms his own sin nature in teaching others about their own.
"or like David, that "man after God's own heart," who raped/sexually preyed upon Bathsheba and who murdered her husband."
WTF???
"When people mess up, they say things like Chris Farley saying something silly to Sir Paul McCartney and face palming himself saying, "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!!" We beat ourselves up and berate ourselves all the time, that too, is part of human nature. And when we do that, we often engage in hyperbole."
What an overt indication of abject panic here!
"The most reasonable and biblical notion in your Jeremiah proof text is that the Prophet is just speaking in hyperbole."
While affirming our sin nature. Again, hyperbole, metaphor, figures of speech do not mitigate the message, but instead direct greater focus on it. He can hyperbole 'till the cows come home, but in doing so, he's affirming the fact of our sin nature.
"Why is that not a reasonable option?"
I'm not obliged to explain stupid. I'm just waiting for you to stop being so and provide a real argument with relevant evidence in support of it.
September 9, 2026 at 5:11 PM
September 9, 2026 at 5:29 PM
"But of course, I have, as you've now seen. And as you SHOULD know as I've given these answers before."
Nothing you've given now, nor anything you've given in the past, have been examples of verses which contradict those I've presented and the message a clear reading of them conveys. You might be asserting an alternative understanding, but you're not providing any evidence which supports that alternative understanding as being likely, possible, probable not totally comedic.
"Some of the main errors in your reading comprehension (that I've offered before AS and WHEN I explained why I disagree with YOUR personal little human traditions and interpretations) come from:"
Again, you've not proven, given evidence to suggest or done anything more than assert my acceptance of the obvious message conveyed by a plain reading of the text is erroneous. And again, I'm well aware you disagree with accepting that message drawn from a clear reading of the text. So let's here review the reason for this post:
You insist that the notion of all of mankind are born with a sin nature is not Biblical. Each of my citations directly refute that claim and instead unequivocally affirm that mankind is born with a sin nature. YOU'RE task was to present evidence of the same level which does the opposite and hopefully (for your sake) to a greater degree which renders my citations as having no merit. You've not yet done that and I've easily explained and demonstrated why it's YOUR citations which are those which don't score any hits. And aside from that failure, the only errors throughout are yours, such as:
--Suggesting or insisting that the use of hyperbole, figurative language, metaphor and the like negate the message of a citation by virtue of those literary devices being used to convey the message.
--Citing verses or passages which don't have any true relevance to the question regarding the verses I've cited to defend the Biblical teaching of man's sin nature.
--Failure to explain how the context you perceive or invent negates the message of the specific verses I cite and how they support the notion that man's sin nature is a Biblical concept.
"1. The assumption that the Bible is something like a rulings book where, IF one finds a line that says something that you personally think is a "teaching" or a moral "truth," THEN you know the truth of that topic, because of a line in the bible. That's a disservice to respectfully honoring the text of the biblical authors."
"The Bible actually contains 613 commandments in the Old Testament alone, plus numerous commands and instructions throughout the New Testament." --https://thebiblechristian.com/how-many-commandments-are-in-the-bible/
That kinda makes it a "rulings book". Moreover, God's Truth is clearly revealed within it, so to point to one and proclaim it as truth is no less than saying water is wet. Altogether, one learns much by an honest and sincere study of Scripture and thus the Bible teaches. To play semantic games over expressions and phrases like, "the Bible teaches" is deceit. What YOU claim to "know" about the faith you learned from your alleged "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture and thus you were "taught" by your study. Stop with this cheap games. That doesn't suggest a "good faith" attitude in the slightest.
What's more, this cheap quibbling still puts the onus on you to provide a better understanding than that to which you object.
"2. Ignoring the often likelihood of figurative language that is often used in biblical texts/passages and presuming it should be understood more or less literally, because it fits with your human traditions."
Again, the mere use of figurative language does nothing to mitigate the message conveyed. If you want to say the message inferred is inferred incorrectly, it's up to you to provide evidence to support whatever the hell your alternative understanding of the message is, which you rarely present. This is the point of this post. "If it doesn't mean 'X', what does it mean?"
"3. And the inverse is true as well: Assuming some lines in the Bible (especially those from Jesus) are meant to be figurative, when the more rationally consistent understanding is that he meant that line more or less literally."
What's actually true is that you've thus far done nothing to prove the citations you've addressed thus far are not rightly understood by me. You've presented no legitimate alternative backed by anything more than your desire that they mean something different than that which a plain reading of the words convey.
September 9, 2026 at 5:44 PM
I fully understand what this Psalm is about. I fully understand David's remorse for his heinous sin. I fully understand that he's depending on God to be merciful, believing Him to be merciful. And I fully understanding that David acknowledges his own sin nature, which was a part of him from the moment of his conception, as is the case with all of us. Are you really suggesting that he regarded himself as unique among men in this manner...this man who followed a truly wicked King Saul to the throne?
No prophet or other Biblical figure, aside from Jesus, has been described as without sin. Not. A. One. David's lament was acknowledging he, too, was born in iniquity and with a sin nature. The context of this Psalm does not mitigate that in any way, nor have you found a way to make do so.
Do you mean, "Therefore, there are objectively NO good humans..." That is
September 9, 2026 at 6:05 PM
"NOT biblical, as the Bible itself records instances of good humans."
You haven't demonstrated that so far with any actual verses to that effect. Each attempt was shown to be a corruption by you to make it seem it speaks of the same concept which is at issue with the Mark 10:18 truth Jesus spoke.
" Further, it's not reality, as we can SEE good people in our lives every day."
We all can see and note people born with a sin nature striving to do good things. That's as "good" as it gets.
"Or at least, I know good people, as good is defined and understood."
That's doubtful given your woefully corrupt notion of what constitutes goodness. True Christian goodness doesn't include enabling infanticide or sexual perversion, and you do this and you've made it clear all those you hold dear do as well. Thus, they're not good at all regardless of how many "good deeds" they perpetrate.
" I hope you know good people."
I know tons of people I regard as "good people" from a human perspective based on the works they perform and the evil they don't commit (like enabling sexual perversion and infanticide), and each one of them is born with a sin nature, is by virtue of Christian truth a sinner in need of Christ.
"Ask a trans person, they can almost certainly point some out to you."
Why would I seek out a pervert to identify "good people"? They embrace their sin nature. So do your lesbo grannies.
September 10, 2026 at 9:05 AM
"As you can see there is no automatic assumption. Rather I consider the text, the context of the day, the context of Jesus' ministry, the very real context of the very real clash between Jesus and the Pharisees and the rich and the powerful, and the context of reality, where in this world we know there are observably good people as good as normally defined. Given all that context it is far and away more reasonable to think that the claim that there is no one good is hyperbole, or figurative in some way."
It's far, far MORE reasonable to suppose that you're critiquing this verse by your worldly perception of good and evil, while Jesus is the basis by which you should be making such judgements. In other words, because you've been trained by the world to determine what constitutes "good" (and you're truly very corrupted by the world in that regard), your perception of "good" is in conflict with the Truth, Who was quite clear that there is no one good but God. He regarded it as so important as to subordinate the RYR's question to address this very important point raised by the RYR's greeting.
Think of it this way:
A dude comes up to you and says, "Dude, I need directions to the nearest hospital for an emergency and since your mother was a goat, I figure you'd know." You say, "Woe, dude! Why do you say my mother was a goat? She was a normal woman (except that she had me for a son)! So take Main St, east until you reach 3rd Avenue, and take a right. It's less than a quarter mile down on your left."
Jesus interrupted the dude's question to straighten him out on the question of Who the only Truly Good Being is. Nothing else in the story, or any irrelevant thing which happened a few verses earlier make what Jesus said less true.
"And yes it seems that way to me."
Because you're not a deep thinker.
"Just as it seems to you all"
It doesn't "seem" that way. It IS that way for Jesus said it directly and without the equivocation you've invented to pretend it was not a factual confirmation of reality.
"...for some reason, in spite of all the reasons not to think it (including reality),"
"Realty" doesn't contradict the fact Jesus made clear.
"The point remains: when you all assume that it should be taken literally, you do so subjectively and without objective proof that you are correct."
We don't "assume". We take Jesus at His Word because there's nothing in the text to suggest any other response from us. There's nothing in the text to suggest He was speaking figuratively. Your refuse to take it literally without any proof to support that self-serving choice.
Your position is not reality. Why would any sane person take the word of some Jeff St. jackwagon over the Truth, Jesus the Christ? Jesus said there is no one good but God. Rational, honest and humble Christians will see that as reason enough to conform our notion of what "good" is, rather than allow our totally, self-serving subjective idea to presume Christ was not speaking the Truth.
September 10, 2026 at 10:16 AM
"The proofs:"
The following are not "proofs". They're personal opinions put forth as "proofs". They carry no weight simply because you really, really believe it.
"1. The word "good" has a definition, one that's common sense and easily understood, including as it relates to people."
Jesus defined "good" by saying only God is good. Thus, "good" is defined as, or is the definition of God. That true definition is distinct from the way we use it colloquially to apply it to other people. God (be It Father or Son) is good but has no sin in Him. A person can be regarded as "good" but still has a sin nature. Having a sin nature means one isn't literally good, but only good as compared to other people based on observed behaviors of either.
"2. We ALL know people who are good by this common standard definition. In the name of God, do you NOT think you know any good people?"
We all know people we regard as good because of their behavior and general character as far as we can discern it. We don't know their hearts. Only God does. But we do know that each "good" person we know has a sin nature which means they're not truly good in the truest sense of the word. I wish that more people would strive to be good on God's terms, but I know that self-described "Christians" from Jeff St., Louisville, KY don't strive to be good on God's terms. They're far worse than merely "imperfect" and their sin is more willful than accidentally "missing the mark". Real Christians are those among whom I aspire to be due to their conviction in the Truth and their constant striving to be "good" on God's terms...at their own expense if need be.
"Do you understand how deeply disturbed that sounds? How pathetic..?"
I understand how badly you need to project negative characteristics on those with a more accurate and true understanding of Scripture. It's deeply disturbing that anyone to push back on God's Truth because it forces them to accept His reality about themselves. I accept that reality and as such I strive to align myself with His. I'm not necessarily good at it. But I don't bullshit about His Will where it conflicts with mine.
"3. In the Bible Jesus and others recognized the reality of good people and referred to them. It is an accepted thing and reality to Jesus, according to his recorded text, that there are good people. Do you not understand that?"
I understand that despite my exposing this false belief, you're going to continue pushing it nonetheless as if it's obvious and self-evident. It is not. It's your corruption of the text. There's no instance of Jesus or anyone recognizing people as "good" in the sense they are good as God is and/or without a sin nature. None of your attempts to suggest that have succeeded. Indeed, they were especially weak attempts.
"Therefore,
given that words have meanings,
that we understand the meaning of the word "good",
that we all recognize people who are good as we understand the word,
and that Jesus and other biblical authors recognize the reality of good people...
Given all that, it is rational to acknowledge: yes of course, there are good people in the world."
There are not. There are nothing but sinners, many of whom strive to live good lives. The distinction is fact and aligns with Biblical teaching that you reject.
"God have mercy, conversation does not have to be this difficult, friends."
It is YOU who makes things difficult by rejecting what Scripture actually says to conform it to what you want it to say.
Dan
September 10, 2026 at 11:10 AM
"You've cited a verse and your personal human reasoning why a literal interpretation of that one line makes sense to you, personally."
I've cited verses and presented them completely so that the message they convey can be realized by any who cares to read them. It's not a matter of "literal". It's a matter of whether or not they mean what the words of the verse are assembled to convey. In other words, the verses are either true or they are not. You refuse to prove why they might not be true. You just play games about "literal", "metaphorical", "figurative", "hyperbole" and the like, as if those styles change the meaning the cited verse conveys. They. Do. Not.
"I've cited the same line and the context and multiple biblical and commonsense rational reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally, including basic reality."
You've not shown how the context mitigates the truth conveyed in the verses I've cited. Indeed, in some cases, you've not accurately presented the context in the first place. Pretending "context matters" is a ploy to provide you with a means by which you can reject the fact that all my citations prove the concept of man's sin nature is Biblical and true, and none do it better than Jesus in Mark 10:18 when He said, "no one is good but God".
"What could you possibly think there is to "shred..."?"
Uh...your horrible corruption of Scripture to defend your unBiblical position against the Biblical principle of man's sin nature? How about that, given I've been shredding it into tiny shards of easily biodegradable threads of pulp.
""What would make your personal human opinion the only possible way to understand that line?"
Honesty and a sincere desire to know God's Will. If only you had either!
Bizarrely enough, Dan does exactly what he accuses Art of regularly.
Hypocrisy runs rampant with this one. Dan seems to be confusing his unsupported hunches with quoting Scripture.
But looking at the meaning and usage of the words used, isn’t worth a response.
The problem with Dan's idiocy and ignorance is that he’s clearly unaware that the term “heart” is a well established term with a specific meaning beyond the simplistic biological one. This is what happens when you try to divorce the OT and Jewish history from the NT and Jesus. Jesus was an observant Jew and lived, spoke, and taught within that context. Dan wants flip this reality and retroactively impose Jesus on historic Jewish thought and practice, instead of acknowledging that Jesus was fulfilling Judaism not replacing it with something entirely new.
Sorry, two comments from Craig.
Marshal...
"This means he needs to bring evidence that the verses I cite mean something entirely different than a plain reading of them so clearly suggests. "
At this point I've repeatedly cited evidence that means the text does not have to be read the way that you personally think makes sense. Your personal little opinion is meaningless when it comes to objective proof. If you want to say, "Yes I really think it means this," that's fine as long as you're clear that it's YOUR personal little opinion. There's plenty of reason, as I've cited already, to NOT take it the way you do. Including rational, biblical reasons and moral reasons.
Marshal...
"I don't want him to "explain" anything. I want him to PROVE the verses I cite don't stand as evidence for the principles he doesn't want to believe are Biblical. "
That is a confusing sentence. Perhaps you'd want to restate it. At this point I've proven solidly that the texts and verses that you've cherry-picked out of context don't HAVE to mean what you personally think they mean AND your pet passages can reasonably be understood as contrary to sound biblical teachings from other places in the Bible (not to mention basic common sense and morality, reasoning). That is an objective fact. Do you understand the distinction?
In other words I've never said that you don't have the opinion that you have because you read verses in the Bible and you take them to mean what you think they mean. I've never said that's not the case. I've said that the way you take them is not the only way to take them and that there are other solidly biblical reasons to reject your silly little opinions as irrational and immoral and unbiblical. And even blasphemous.
Dan
I'll repeat an earlier question that I think got overlooked in this grand mess of words:
Tell me,
IF an unbiased reader
wholly unfamiliar with these theories of yours
or Christian tenets, in general,
IF they read the gospel stories, would you think that this reader would say, "Oh yes, Jesus is teaching and defining something very much like modern evangelicals would call Christianity," or would you see that that is not clear or direct in Jesus' teachings?
Do you think they would conclude:
Jesus is clearly teaching that there are NO good humans and
that ALL humans are deserving of eternal torment in a place called "hell"
and that the ONLY way NOT to get what they "deserve" is to accept a
"blood payment" from Jesus' blood from his execution to "pay for" their "sin debt" that arose from their innate "sin nature..."?
I'd say there is no way in hell (forgive the mythical allusion) that any person would come away from a fresh, unbiased reading of the four Gospels with those conclusions.
I'd further say there's no way they'd come away from a fresh unbiased reading of the OT in whole with those conclusions.
Your conclusions can ONLY be reached if you were indoctrinated to believe the calvinist/modern evangelical traditions. Indeed, in the real world, I BELIEVED that modern conservative evangelical group of theories... and I left them, one by one, because the support just wasn't there in the pages of the bible and within just common sense and rational thought... and it wasn't even that I WANTED to abandon modern evangelical religiosism, but I had a stronger debt to God and the pages/teachings of the bible and specifically Jesus that pushed me away from your type of theories. And beyond my allegiance to God, the Biblical witness and Jesus, it was the bad reasoning/bad faith "arguments" that conservative religionists embraced when they abused the bible to try to force their personal human traditions that pushed me away from conservative religiosity.
Bizarrely enough, Dan does exactly what he accuses Art of regularly.
Hypocrisy runs rampant with this one. Dan seems to be confusing his unsupported hunches with quoting Scripture.
But looking at the meaning and usage of the words used, isn’t worth a response.
The problem with Dan's idiocy and ignorance is that he’s clearly unaware that the term “heart” is a well established term with a specific meaning beyond the simplistic biological one. This is what happens when you try to divorce the OT and Jewish history from the NT and Jesus. Jesus was an observant Jew and lived, spoke, and taught within that context. Dan wants flip this reality and retroactively impose Jesus on historic Jewish thought and practice, instead of acknowledging that Jesus was fulfilling Judaism not replacing it with something entirely new.
“At this point I've proven solidly that the texts and verses that you've cherry-picked out of context don't HAVE to mean what you personally think they mean ”
1. I’ve seen nothing in your rambling which proves anything.
2. I love the goal post move here. You haven’t proven that Art’s plain reading of the text is absolutely wrong. That you make claims about what they “don’t have to mean”, while failing to offer any proof of what they do actually mean is quite the low bar.
Offering some vague, non specific, theoretical alternatives as if they somehow magically erase the plain meaning of the text is pretty pathetic.
C
Craig thinks he has stumbled onto something special and a deal-breaker with his reference to Agathos. The word Agathos means GOOD in a variety of senses. There is no one PERFECTLY good like God. That's not in dispute. BUT, that doesn't mean that there are NO humans that are good, as the word is used in the New Testament. Do you understand that?
Here's more...
"Agathos, “good,” is a versatile word, meaning excellence of many kinds. It can describe fertile soil (Luke 8:8) or productive trees (Matthew 7:17). A rich man might boast of the “good things” he had accumulated – his possessions. (Luke 16:25).
Secular Greek philosophers argued at great length about “the greatest good,” the highest goals in life.
But the New Testament measures goodness in a different way.
Goodness involves moral uprightness.
Jesus often divided people into two categories: good and evil. He said that the Father “causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good (Matthew 5:45), and declared that the good man produces what is good, while the evil man produces what is evil (Matthew 12:35).
When a rich young man addressed Jesus as “Good teacher,” He replied, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18).
In these passages, agathos means “good” in the sense of “righteous, free from sin.” God alone is totally righteous, so He alone is good in the highest sense.
However, there is a second aspect to goodness in the New Testament.
Goodness involves generous gifts to bless needy people.
God, as usual, sets the pattern. James 1:17 says that every good gift comes from the Father, because He is the One who consistently acts for the good of His people. In fact, “we know that all things work together for good for those who love God” (Romans 8:28).
The New Testament is sprinkled with examples of goodness that lovingly gives:
The landowner in Christ’s parable gave bonus wages to those who only worked an hour, reminding his critics that he had a right to be generous (agathos) (Matthew 20:15)."
https://ezraproject.com/agathosune-getting-practical-about-goodness/
In short the reality that God (at least as I imagine God, although certainly not the case in y'all's wild imagination of god) is PERFECTLY good does not mean that humans can not also be good, because of course they are, as the word is used by Jesus in the context of the Bible.
Dan
Craig, still missing the point...
"1. I’ve seen nothing in your rambling which proves anything."
1. I've established objectively that in the Bible, it is said that there are NO humans who are good AND that there ARE good humans. BOTH things objectively exist in the Bible. Of course they do.
2. I've reminded us of the logical problem that both things can't simultaneously be factually true. That is objectively a rule of logic: A and NOT A can't both be simultaneously true.
Do you accept the reality that those are both things that I've objectively pointed out?
Truly conversation does not have to be this difficult, men.
Craig continued...
"2. I love the goal post move here. You haven’t proven that Art’s plain reading of the text is absolutely wrong."
There is no goal post move. If anything you are continuing to have reading comprehension problems. I've always been abundantly clear, over and over and over and over, throughout conversations for decades now, that we can't objectively prove our opinions about God's opinion or about Jesus' opinion or the author's opinion of a given text (not if we can't literally speak with them to confirm). We can't in the case of biblical authors.
I've never said I can objectively prove that the Bible teaches objectively that there are good humans. What I've said is that I can point to biblical text, reason, and common sense to show that biblical authors do, in fact, objectively refer to good humans. Their intent, you'll have to take it up with them but you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept your word for it.
When a passage seems clearly to be hyperbole or otherwise not literal, I'm not going to take your word for it that it is literal. Does that not make sense to you?
What goal post do you think was moved?
Dan
September 10, 2026 at 3:34 PM
"This is precisely a passage about the problems of wealth,
in the context of a passage about being humble as a child
in the context of Jesus' ongoing battle with the Pharisees and their abuse of power and wealth and privilege."
If I was to accept your understanding about what surrounds Mark 10:18, none of it matters to the fact that Mark 10:18 presents Jesus defining "good" as being God. He's not saying God does good, but IS good. He's saying God is "goodness" itself and thus no one else is or can be. It's similar to God saying, "I AM", which doesn't mean He's a "being", but rather that "He IS 'being'". Because God exists, all else exists. Because God is "being", all else can be. Because God is GOOD, "good" exists at all. "Good" is His nature. It is not ours. It's certainly not yours.
And I GET the simple little blather point you're trying to make. "God IS good, not God DOES good." But what difference does it make what you think? Reality still knocks and you don't answer the door.
There ARE HUMANS who are good, too. Not PERFECTLY good, like a God, but still good. They have generally good motives, they're caring, compassionate, kind, decent.. they want to help and welcome and love and forgive. That is in the nature of some humans.
NOT perfectly, but it "good" does not insist upon perfection. Not in the Bible. Not in reality. Not as the word is understood EVEN IF you imagine you have a super secret definition that really is "real" to you in your head.
It doesn't matter if YOU think the definition of good should be "good as God," that ISN'T the definition of good.
It's objectively not the definition of the Greek word translated good in your pet text and it's not the definition of good in standard English.
You can have your own super secret dictionary if you want, Marshal, but reality does not require the rest of us to empower you to make the definitions.
[rolls eyes]. Y'all are just so lost in your human traditions. Blinded by the blight, if you will. Wrapped up like a douche in the middle of the night.
Marshal:
Because God is GOOD, "good" exists at all
Are you saying that this is your unproven theory? OR that you have objectively proven it by citing your little verse out of context?
If the latter, you know that this is not objective proof, right?
You see, one hole in your theory, one huge notion that you are sort of assuming but without proof, is that (it appears) you think that God "creates" or "defines" good and that without God defining Good, defining Morality, defining Wrong... those notions would not exist and we would have no way of guessing at them (because, presumably, you imagine a god and a universe of chaos and whimsy where things aren't right or wrong because they promote love and health, on the one hand or promote/cause harm and hate on the other).
Is that your theory? And if so, do you acknowledge you have no objective proof of the theory and that truly, it sounds a little amoral and godless, itself. It sounds more like a whimsical demon of chaos, not a perfectly good God of Love and justice.
Feel free to elaborate on your little human theories.
September 10, 2026 at 3:56 PM
"...to adopt a simplistic "Jesus said, 'No one is good, therefore no one is good'" is a poor place to start, too. Given the text, the context, and reality."
it's the perfect place to start given the point of the post, which was to list Biblical citations which prove that "man's sin nature" is "Biblical", something you deny without basis. More importantly, there's nothing "simplistic" about Jesus's words in Mark 10:18. Indeed, it was so important to Jesus that He set aside the RYR's intention for approaching Jesus at all to focus on this point! "Simplistic" is the simpleton who can't grasp that importance and arrogantly dismisses it as a result.
"I'm doing quite the opposite: stating clearly that a perfect Almighty God IS a perfect Almighty God and humans are not that. To try to suggest that to be good one has to be like a perfect Almighty God, that's bullshit, nonsense, and a great disservice to the text. Do you understand?"
I understand that being a simpleton, this makes sense to you, but it is that simple-minded inability to grasp the truth you're calling "bullshit" which belies every claim by you that we struggle with "nuance". Jesus is saying exactly that...to be "good" one must be as perfect as God. Because we are each of us born with a sin nature, we cannot be perfect. We cannot BE good. Only God is perfect. Only God is good. All goodness flows from its Source, Who IS "Good". The "best" human being is but a poor reflection of "good", as we are each of us poor reflections of Him in Whose Image we are made.
It's really a simple concept to understand, but not a simplistic one. Simpletons struggle to grasp the nuance here. Don't be a simpleton.
And once again, keep in mind these words of Jesus as well: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." ---Matt 5:48 (NIV) ...which tracks with< "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy." ---Lev 19:2 (NIV) Therefore, we strive to be good, though we are not, because God is good. What good we do comes from Him through us, not from us, because we are not good. We are sinners. That's Bible Study 101.
Marshal:
it's the perfect place to start given the point of the post, which was to list Biblical citations which prove that "man's sin nature" is "Biblical", something you deny without basis.
Again, what do YOU mean by Biblical? When I deny that it's biblical, I mean that "the Bible" does not, Jesus does not, the text does not, GOD ALMIGHTY does not INSIST that it be taken the way you, personally, are choosing to take it. AND that there are other biblical texts and basic common sense that argues against taking it that way. In THAT sense, it's not biblical.
If you merely mean, "Here's a verse that makes me personally think Jesus is suggesting or even demanding that we should understand that humans have a "sin nature..."" IF that's all, and it makes YOU think that, well, I'm still not sure that's biblical. It's that you've found a verse that makes you feel better about accepting your human traditions and unproven theories.
So, once again, define "biblical" and define your super secret special-to-you definition of "good."
Also, what does it even MEAN to you all that there are no good people? What does that look like? How do you define that?
That might be a step in the direction of you making more sense than you are currently.
Marshal:
More importantly, there's nothing "simplistic" about Jesus's words in Mark 10:18.
Sigh. Read for understanding. I'm not saying that Jesus' words are simplistic. I'm saying your understanding and take on this one line is simplistic.
I'm not confusing you with Jesus.
Marshal offered another little unsupported theory he thought up:
Therefore, we strive to be good, though we are not, because God is good.
Says who? That is, is that your own little reason for "striving to be good," NOT because it's the right thing to do? Something that you recognize as a child created in the image of an almighty God, with that of God within you to recognize the good and eschew the harmful...?
Marshal missed the point and falsely attacked, saying:
"Simplistic" is the simpleton who can't grasp that importance and arrogantly dismisses it as a result.
I objectively have not missed the importance of the text nor have I dismissed it, in context of the Pharisees and the rich. Jesus was bringing them down a bit, humbling them so that they might not think so highly of themselves. That I disagree with your little human opinion on that line does not mean I "dismissed" anything more than dismissing/disagreeing with your little unproven human opinion.
Marshal raved:
Jesus is saying exactly that...to be "good" one must be as perfect as God.
I GET that this is your insane little opinion, graceless and immoral as hell, though it may be. But I'm not obliged to agree with your little human opinions. Do you understand that and accept the reality that I must strive to follow God - the great God of love and grace and welcome - as best I understand God, and if I need to disagree with your human opinions, I'm obliged to do just that?
September 10, 2026 at 4:14 PM
"The reality of good people, is something normal people can see in the world all around us, hopefully you do, but you tell me."
The reality of "good people" is that we are each born with a sin nature (we are all sinners), with a percentage doing works regarded by a percentage of others as "good deeds" based on the subjective perception of what constitutes "good" based on the ideological and cultural influence of those making such judgements. While there is wide overlap as regards certain deeds being judged as either good or evil, there is also a great divergence between individuals when comparing their lists of such. Scant few, if any, match God as to what constitutes good and evil.
"The reality of good people IS a central part of this discussion and the problem that you all have insofar as y'all appear to not want to acknowledge that simple observable reality."
The reality that we are each born with a sin nature is THE TOPIC of this discussion and the problem you have is that you're incapable of providing any Scriptural evidence which refutes this Biblical truth. Because of the fact confirmed by Jesus in Mark 10:18, you thus reject reality in favor of your fantasy.
"We all know good people."
We all know people we label as good by virtue of their works.
"Jesus knew good people (at least if you want to take his words seriously and even literally) and said so."
This is a truth claim you've not supported.
"It's not like a weird strange thing unique to me and Jesus to note the reality of good people."
Jesus did not "note the reality of good people". He confirmed there is no one good but God. Again, that is observable and objectively factual.
"You try to dismiss the notion of good people as, "Well, sure, there might be some people who do apparently, perhaps, maybe, good things, perhaps. Sometimes maybe, possibly, but we don't really know." Bullshit. That's graceless legalism and it's hellish man."
That Jesus! What a graceless, hellish legalist! Jesus confirmed there is no one good but God. Thus, we absolutely know without equivocation or doubt that there are not truly good people. There are only sinners who do or strive to do good works, some even on God's terms.
"Good people are beyond just someone who occasionally does something good."
They're non-existent.
"It's people with empathy and kindness and compassion and integrity and such people really do exist"
But that doesn't make them "good". That makes them simply sinful people with empathy and kindness and compassion and integrity...no matter how hard it seems for you to wrap your mind around.
"Craig, are you not at least in some way a good person?"
Based on years of blog discussions, Craig is clearly a person I would describe as one of the better people in the world. You, not so much. Just sayin'.
"If you're not a good person then why should we take your words seriously?"
Because he's honest about the teachings of the faith. You're not a good person and you're clearly dishonest about God's Will. We don't take your words seriously. Doing so would make us buffoons.
Marshal, Craig: Do you know that, by and large, ancient Hebrews, including first century Jews, including the rabbis and scholars, did NOT hold to these human theories of "total depravity" of humanity, of "original sin," of an innately "sinful nature" of humanity (at least not that I can find in the sense of later calvinist types)? Nor did first century Christians?
Did you know that these human theories developed over centuries, mostly starting with Augustine and fully blooming in the human theories of 16th century "reformers..."?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
Craig (apparently):
The reality that we are each born with a sin nature is THE TOPIC of this discussion and the problem you have is that you're incapable of providing any Scriptural evidence which refutes this Biblical truth.
It's literally NOT a "biblical truth." it is literally a human opinion that SOME humans hold based on some verses they read that, TO THEM, suggests this theory of a "sin nature." It's NOT objectively proven, at all.
Do you recognize these objective realities?
"Craig," STILL missing the point:
Jesus confirmed there is no one good but God.
Jesus STATED that AND Jesus affirmed the existence/reality of good people. You can't just take one passage ripped from context and act like it's a proven. It's not, objectively not.
Do you recognize that you have not/can not prove objectively these little human theories you all hold?
Sorry, I guess that last quote/comments were from Marshal, not Craig. I made a mistake.
Dan:
"Good people are beyond just someone who occasionally does something good."
Marshal:
They're non-existent.
Also Marshal:
Craig is clearly a person I would describe as one of the better people in the world.
So, does that mean Craig IS a good person (by your estimation) OR that he's non-existent? I'm confused.
Marshal:
But that (humans who are kind, empathetic, caring, etc) doesn't make them "good". That makes them simply sinful people with empathy and kindness and compassion and integrity...no matter how hard it seems for you to wrap your mind around.
1. PROVE IT.
2. It's only hard to wrap my mind around because your claim is entirely devoid of rational support and contrary to, you know, reality and shit.
Leave it to the human haters to declare, with no support, that decent humans who are kind, compassionate, caring, giving, helpful, loving... that THESE are not good people, by the Pharisees graceless measure.
Thankfully, God is not like the graceless, legalistic Pharisees - those back in Jesus' day nor the modern ones.
September 10, 2026 at 9:57 PM
"In the Gospel of Matthew, the Pharisees (not to mention yet the Sadducees and the "teachers of the law" and priests and chief priests, all who represent different aspects of Jewish leadership and are often in conflict with each other, and yet all conspire together with the Pharisees to ultimately kill Jesus) are mentioned something like 30 times (fyi: Matthew is 28 chapters long. Jesus doesn't start his ministry until chapter 4, so that's the equivalent of over one mention per chapter in Jesus' ministry.)
The Sadducees are mentioned 8 times in Matthew, fyi.
The Pharisees are mentioned 28 times in the Gospel of Luke and its 24 chapters which, again, Jesus doesn't start his ministry until chapter 4, so 20 chapters of Jesus' ministry with 28 mentions of Pharisees."
None of this has any relevance to the point of this post. They don't in any way detract from the fact established by the provision of the many citations of that which affirms the Biblical teaching of mankind's sin nature.
"How often are gay folks mentioned in Matthew? Zero times.
How often is "adulter" (adultery, adulterer, etc) mentioned in Matthew? 8.
How often are "the lazy poor" mentioned in Matthew? 0."
How does asking these questions stand as evidence against the now established fact of mankind's sin nature, especially given the sins in these questions flow from man's sin nature? Yet we do know that each of these people would be regarded as sinful since their behaviors are unequivocally prohibited by God and thus there is no need for them to be mentioned at all, much less sinfully suggest that the number of times they might be or aren't means the Gospels about about conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders of His day. No. The conflict of import is that between Jesus and sin. That conflict will culminate with His laying down His life for the forgiveness of sin and His ultimate triumph over sin by His Resurrection. If you would take some time to seriously and prayerfully study Scripture, you'll learn all this.
"I mention the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees because..."
...you're incapable of providing evidence which refutes the fact that we each are born with a sin nature as confirmed by my many citations.
"that conflict is THE prevalent theme in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life."
Not a "theme", but merely events which occurred during Christ's ministry. The following describes the actual themes of each Gospel:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/religion/main-themes-of-the-four-gospels-religion-essay.php
Mark 10:18 has more to do with the "themes" of the Gospels than any conflict with the religious leaders. You're just deflecting and avoiding your obligation.
"Why is it wrong to point that out?"
Because it's irrelevant to the point of the post and you bring it up to avoid your obligation to address it, which is in response to your wild claim that mankind's sin nature isn't Biblical.
"Can you at least see how that strikes me as strange that you seem to want to downplay that very pivotal and ongoing conflict?"
Also irrelevant, but not as strange as how you refuse to cop to your error when you've found yourself incapable of defending it against what Scripture actually teaches regarding mankind's sin nature.
"If nothing else, the distinct difference between the Pharisees' legalism and Jesus' way of Grace that WAS/IS the Gospel are made quite black and white thanks to the Pharisees playing the foils to Jesus' actual good news message."
The distinct difference between Jesus and the Trabue's of His time was that He continually deferred to what the written Law said and required against the corruptions of the Pharisees oral law.
What I know is that the Bible teaches us that we are each born with a sin nature and my citations in the post are clear evidence of that teaching. OBJECTIVE evidence, if you will.
September 10, 2026 at 10:48 PM
"You're literally proof texting, identifying a passage (in this case, ripped totally out of the context of the story) that you think supports a specific argument/theory you hold."
I'm literally presenting verses which directly and unambiguously refute your claim that the principle of mankind's sin nature is not Biblical. The context in which the verse appears...the "story"...doesn't in any way mitigate the fact that the verses satisfy your demand perfectly. They each reference our sin nature.
"Would you agree that this "no one is good but God," in THIS story is a throwaway line, NOT the central point of this whole exchange with the rich man who chose not to give to the poor and follow Jesus?"
No. It is NOT a "throwaway line". As I stated in an earlier comment, Jesus considered the point important enough to set aside the RYR's question to clarify this point. I also understand that you are not above throwing away many truths of Scripture which conflict with your marxist, liberation theology universalism. I also understand that the RYR walking away shocked by the encouragement Jesus made to him does not suggest a refusal to be more charitable with his wealth. We've no way of knowing how Jesus would respond if the the RYR replied that he didn't understand what Jesus was encouraging him to do. It's quite possibly that Jesus might have clarified and said, "No. You don't have to give it all away to be a true follower." because no one needs to do so. Zacchaeus wasn't told to do that. Joseph of Arimathea was still loaded. It's clearly YOU who injects your personal preferences into the passages to make it more palatable to you personally. I just read.
"Also, would you agree that this passage has a man asking Jesus directly how to be saved and Jesus' literal and quite clear direct answer is NOT "blood atonement" but instead, directly, "Sell your stuff. Give to poor. Follow me..."?"
A clear reading of the passage reveals Jesus had no problem with his wealth, but rather a problem with his attachment to it. Only a marxist steeped in liberation theology and universalism like yourself would make that laughably blatant mistake. I don't believe Jesus proclaimed His ultimate purpose for having been born to all the people, but following Christ will come to be preached as including acknowledgement of His Blood Atonement...substituting Himself for us to receive the penalty for our sins, which opened the way to God's Grace to all who believes likewise. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that most precious Truth.
September 10, 2026 at 10:52 PM
I had said:
"There's nothing whatsoever "irrational" about stating a fact, which is that there is no one good but God."
To which Dan then falsely asserted:
"Question begging fallacy. Lose."
Frankly, I'm not sure where Dan sees any "question begging"...especially as this logical fallacy is one that's abused quite a bit. But here's the thing on which he's not bright or honest enough to focus: Jesus was stating the fact (Mark 10:18), and thus there's nothing irrational about that. Dan pretends it doesn't mean what Jesus said, despite offering no "HARD DATA" which contradicts it, but only that which Dan threw at the wall hoping it would stick.
I believe Dan means it's irrational to trust that Jesus was being literal in confirming no one is good but God, but there's nothing in the "context" about which Dan pays such insincere regard which gives any reason to doubt He meant exactly what He said in exactly how the words He used convey that fact. And it remains a fact until some intelligent person Dan will have to seek and secure for the purpose can present evidence which compels one to understand it in a manner which doesn't conform with the word Jesus used. Bad appeals to verses which don't actually indicate a person being spoken of as "good" won't get it done and they haven't when Dan offered them for the purpose.
I've not "lost" at all. Dan's no closer to refuting the citations as satisfying his challenge than he was when he first pretended the principle of man's sin nature isn't Biblical.
September 10, 2026 at 10:59 PM
"I'm not saying "works make you good."
Do you understand that? Is that what you THOUGHT I was saying? If so, that points to poor reading comprehension problem.
It should be hilarious to see how you try to weasel out of this one!
"I'm saying
1. That there ARE good people in the world, as good is typically understood.
Do you disagree?"
I agree that you're saying this, such that there wasn't any reason to bore me with this ten-thousandth repetition.
"2. Good people are recognized by their character, not by their actions.
3. Their character, on the other hand, is reflected in their actions."
Thus by their actions, you determine they are "good". And to be sure, those are only those action which YOU regard as "good deeds".
"Put another way: Good people are people who have integrity, who are compassionate, who are empathetic, who are kind, who are respectful of others... all of that as a general rule, as part of their nature.
NOT by their actions."
Yet, curiously, you can't determine any of that without actions to support so labeling them.
"But people who are kind, compassionate, respectful, etc, act out in ways/actions that are helpful, giving, etc."
Thus you are judging them to be good by their actions...but only those of which YOU are aware. Not all of their actions. And given it's YOU doing the judging, that inspires no confidence whatsoever that ANYONE you know are actually good people if they pervert God's Will as you do to enable and defend abomination and infanticide.
"Do you understand that distinction?"
You're saying they're good because they do good things. Got it. Vile sinners do good things, too.
"Do you understand that this line of thinking is how people commonly recognize good people?"
I was never unaware of that. Too bad it's not the issue and the fact that we humans apply the word to people who do works we find pleasing doesn't do a damned thing to either prove the concept of man's sin nature isn't Biblical or that Jesus wasn't speaking plainly about the truth that only God is good.
"Do you honestly not know anyone like that?"
Doesn't matter in the least toward refuting the truths of man's sin nature being universal and that only God is good. I think it's obvious given your incredible inability to grasp the distinction between true goodness and the pale imitation of goodness by the bestest person ever, you might want to go back to the actual point of the post, which is about man's sin nature. Mark 10:18 is just the first piece of evidence for that truth and you've chosen to make the whole discussion about it and then spent tons of keystrokes proving you can't refute it.
Only God is good.
September 10, 2026 at 11:09 PM
"Things like this are what rational people mean by "good people" and why we recognize the reality of good people as good as typically understood. What is wrong with this definition/explanation?"
Aside from it total irrelevance to the point of this post, nothing. I'm done trying to make you understand that people referring to people as "good" does not mean Jesus lied or was metaphorical or figurative or just messin' with the RYR. Only God is good. We're free to use the word to distinguish between the most vile and unChrisitian and Christians and those who are "Christian-like". I do it all the time. Yet I do so having accepted the plain and Jesus-confirmed fact that only God is good.
"Also what does it even MEAN to you all that there are no good people?"
It means only God is good. It doesn't mean that there are no people who do good things. Some (not very many) are really closely aligned with God's Will such that they make the vast majority of those most would call "good" look like spawns of Satan. Yet, they are nonetheless still born with a sin nature.
"Is it just the case that no mere mortal is perfect like an Almighty God and therefore there is no one good? Again that's clinically insane."
It's not in the least bit insane to acknowledge and accept the truth that God is what good is and no human being is better than a pale reflection of Him. It's the case that only God (Father, Son or Holy Ghost) is without sin and the rest of us have it in spades...and thus we aren't "good". What's clinically insane is to wet yourself over this fact rather than accept it and do your best to be as Christ-like as possible, thereby demonstrating you actually believe in Him and accept Him as your Lord and Savior, rather than posturing as if you do while supporting, defending and enabling some of the most vile of sins on the list of "Thou shalt nots" from that Holy Rulings Book we Christians refer to as "The Holy Bible", wherein we learn that all are born with a sin nature.
So, in summary:
1. You all (or at least you, Marshal) believe in your heads that this theory that "there are no good humans. Period" makes rational and biblical sense.
2. You think this theory isn't crazy NOT because you don't recognize there are what you gracelessly allow that there are people who APPEAR good "to other humans" because they aren't as overtly evil as rapists or your president but because there are lines in the Bible that make you think, personally, that phrases like "there is no one who is good but God" should be taken literally.
3. You think this NOT because of how the word Good (in English, Greek or otherwise) means one must be perfect like a GOD to be good, but because you think in your heads that there is a super secret definition of "good" that outweighs the standard definition. You think this EVEN WHILE you can't provide a rational source for that definition beyond your personal little theory that you think in your head that it makes sense to take "there is no one good but God" as a literal declaration that all humans are "not good."
4. Given the reality that ancient writers/speakers and teachers (like Jesus) regularly engage in hyperbole and figurative speech, you don't think it applies here because.. well, just because that's what you think. You 100% absolutely can not objectively prove your little irrational, immoral human theory.
So, you're welcome to believe you have "proof" even though you can't objectively prove it, it doesn't matter how irrational or squirrely you present when making such nonsense claims, but you just can't expect anyone else to take you seriously or even consider that you have sanity in place.
One final example, then.
I have all manner of folks with disabilities in my life, including many friends with Down Syndrome. Now, of course, stereotypes are not fair and can't be taken literally, but some stereotypes are there because of a kernel of truth. Many adults (and children) with Down Syndrome are just amongst the kindest, most helpful, caring, compassionate people in the world. I'll reference one of my young friends: They are extremely compassionate and kind. Their face always lights up when they see me, they wave and are anxious to have an opportunity to talk with me (and others!). They always ask about my daughter who is their age and they grew up together. She's genuinely interested in knowing how things are going for me, my family, my daughter. They like working and work as hard as they can. If someone is sad, they're sad with them. If they hear a grandparent of a friend has passed on, they may just cry then and there, out of compassion for that friend - even though they don't know the grandparent.
They are, in summary, a kind, compassionate, helpful, caring, lovely person. They are, in every sense, a genuinely good person. NOT a perfect person who always does right, but a genuinely good person. They recognize right and wrong and don't always do the right, a point they'd be glad to concede, but they ARE a good person. A model for rest of humanity.
Hopefully you have such friends and acquaintances in your life.
Now, are you deranged and evil enough that you would seriously call this person - people like this (not necessarily only those with Down Syndrome) "NOT good," in spite of the reality of their lives?
If so, do you recognize that ALL that is proof of is how very depraved and sick-in-your-soul YOU are?
Get help, man. Your human traditions haven't blackened your heart and corrupted your mind.
Now Dan is an expert on what 1st century Jews believed about sin and atonement.
Somehow Dan has decided that this thread is now to be focused on Dan’s hunches about 1st. century views on atonement.
Strangely enough we know in great detail how Jews felt about sin and atonement. The Torah is pretty specific about sin and atonement, and observant Jews followed those laws. It’s hardly a mystery. Sin, sacrifice, forgiveness/atonement (in a very simplistic form). Early Hebrew Scripture talks about Sin as a physical weight, and atonement as YHWH removing that weight. By the 1st century and the advent of an economy where money was widely available, the description changed to the concept of a debt. Interestingly enough, it’s not much of a mental shift since debt is often described as a. crushing weight or burden.
In any case, 1st century Jews operated under the sacrificial system established in the Torah, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. The unblemished lamb sacrificed for the sin of all.
But, I can’t believe Dan prefers this alternative.
Dan finally addressed Agathos, poorly, but finally. He then proposes a new, secret, definition of “good”, which miraculously aligns with his hunches.
I’m amazed.
C
May I point out a perfect proof of the inborn sin nature? Anyone who had children has watched them sin and they were never taught to sin or what sin is until they well into the toddler stages and yet they sin in many ways.
One thing I've learned about Dan over the years is that he refuses to agree with what the Bible actually does say and he says it is only our opinions to think that when the Bible explicitly says something and anyone with reading comprehension, without a LEFTIST bias points out the explicit meaning. Nope, the Bible cannot mean what it says, regardless of how for almost two thousand years Christians understood the proper meanings. We've been wrong for almost 2000 years because DAN and his perverted, LEFTIST ilk don't like the plain context and plain meaning.
Oh, and one more thing--To Dan we just have our "Human Opinions" but his opinions are not just human. Well, that's because he is a pawn of satan and that is where his opinions come from !
So Dan relies on Wikipedia to determine that humans do not have a sin nature. That the idea of a sin nature didn't exist before Calvinists came up with the idea of "Total Depravity" (an idea of which IS unbiblical but doesn't deny the sin nature.)
I don't have the time or inclination to wade through this mountains of crap here, but I've noticed something.
Based on my quick look at what the word translated "good" meant and how it was used in the original one thing becomes clear. That in the original, there were two meanings of the word based on who was being referred to.
There was "YHWH good", and there was "human good". I've been arguing this for years. When applied to humans, "good" is limited and relative. When applied to YHWH, "good" is objective. Based on the conversation, Jesus was clear that no human was "YHWH good", which doesn't seem controversial, but that doesn't mean that people can't be "human good".
Dan seems to be introducing some third category of "good" based on his eisegesis of the NT, which seems redundant as the two uses of the word agathos seem to cover all of the territory necessary. I'm not sure why we need the confusion of some new, made up, definition.
Finally, where the real issue comes is what does it mean to be "good" by Dan's definition. Scripture and human nature seem to militate against the notion that humans are intrinsically "good" (even though created to be very good), so the question seems to come down to how does one qualify to be considered "good".
From what Dan has said, he judges the goodness of people based on their good works. It seems as though his rubric is good works=good person. The obvious problem is that "good" people still do not "good" things. So, one must ask what is the line at which someone becomes not "good"? If 50.1% of one's actions are not "good", is that the line? What about someone who does lots of "good" things in public, but is not "good" in private.
I'm with Art that Scripture seems pretty clear about the state of humans being "good". I don't disagree that there is a subjective, comparative, standard that allows us to acknowledge that humans can be referred to as "good", while acknowledging that it's not a measure of intrinsic or inherent ontological "goodness". At best humans are a mixed bag of good and not good, to deny this seems absurd. Yet some people can legitimately be referred to as "good", while acknowledging that they are not "YHWH good".
Art has done a good job of focusing on what Scripture actually says, while Dan has done Dan stuff.
September 10, 2026 at 11:24 PM
"The true definition of good? Do you have some hidden, arcane, unknown to the rest of the world, super secret definition of good that we don't know? The one TRUE definition???!!
Pray tell, what is it?"
Mark 10:18 provides the answer to anyone who truly employs one's God-given reason. Jesus said there's no one good but God. God is perfectly sinless. So obviously "good" is perfection...one totally without sin. One who's nature is perfect goodness. In a nutshell, the definition of "good" is God. Jesus didn't say, "This is the definition of 'good'!", but He nonetheless defined it in just that way by saying, "There is no one good but God alone".
And considering how ubiquitous is the Christian Bible, that definition is hardly "hidden" or "super secret". Thus, there are simply those who know and revere Scripture and the words of God (Father or Son) found therein, who are cognizant of this definition and then there are two other groups to consider:
1. Those who never read Scripture and are unfamiliar with this verse which provides us this true definition, and
2. Those who claim to have read Scripture...even going so far as to claim to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture...yet reject this fact as they reject so many other Biblical facts they don't personally favor.
Yet it remains the true definition according to my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God.
Craig just flat out lied:
Art has done a good job of focusing on what Scripture actually says, while Dan has done Dan stuff.
What you MEANT to say (if you cared about facts, reality and good faith honesty) was that Marshal randomly whimsically chose ONE set of verses to focus on while ignoring other biblical passages AND reality AND reason that show that those verses are NOT rightly, biblically taken literally.
Marshal cited a handful (or two) of verses that say something to the effect of "No one is good but God..." but usually with even less emphasis (like the man, David, saying that HE was a liar and a sinner in the womb/at birth - speaking of himself, not all of humanity). A FEW verses that say something like that.
I, on the other hand, point out the reality that there are also biblical verses that say we humans are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, created to do good works, created with an understanding of right and wrong and moral notions. Jesus and others literally cite "Good people..." and I can go on and on repeating the multiple biblical verses that point to actually good, upright, moral, decent people.
IN ADDITION to these biblical texts, I point to the reality of actually good people that we all know in this world. Or at least I and my friends know good people. Maybe you all are living lives of such insulated isolation that you truly don't know ANY good people. Perhaps it's the case that you all are genuinely BAD people, yourselves, along with your wives, your children, your family and friends. I doubt that seriously, but maybe that's YOUR PERSONAL view of your loved ones (so sorry for them, if that's the case!)
I'd ask you once again that reality-based question that you all continue to dodge: Do you NOT KNOW ANY good people?
And here, I'm talking NOT about "perfect people," (we have a word for that: PERFECT PEOPLE). I'm talking about genuinely good, caring, kind, compassionate, empathetic people - you know, the traits of Good People as the actual word is defined, both in Greek and in English. Do you actually not know ANYONE that you're willing to say, "Man, that's a genuinely good person!"?
How pathetic that you can't recognize the good and decent people of the world, but maybe that's why you're so biblically and rationally blinded on this point - because you all are so depraved that you can't imagine actually decent people. Is that the case?
Another question to go ignored.
Regardless, as my words make clear: I HAVE cited biblical cases of good people, of Jesus referring to good people as an actual reality. AND without the jackass-ish hedging of "well... SORT of good, people... you know, actually evil brutes, but compared to some other evil brutes, rapists and child abusers, they're better than that..."
What an insult to the people of God! and, by extension, God's own Self!
The reality is that we've both cited biblical passages that (in my case, anyway) support our theories. The problem is that y'all's theories are undone by reality AND the Bible and you're just too blinded by your human traditions to recognize it.
You truly fit the model of the Pharisees.
Marshal stupidly, ignorantly and falsely claimed:
Yet it remains the true definition according to my Lord and Savior
IT IS YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION. YOU are the one who is insisting that this verse should be taken as a literal representation of God's thinking, in spite of Jesus repeatedly citing good people. Along with others.
Did you know that there are a total of FIVE verses in all the Bible that come close to saying something like, "No humans are good..."? And ONE of those is Paul repeating what the Psalmist said and two others of them say something like "there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins." But that's just pointing to the reality of humans who aren't perfect. It's NOT (literally not) saying that there are no good humans.
So, really, something like three verses that say that directly (and then, there is the question of it's hyperbole or figurative in some way, which clearly, it is).
On the other hand, do you KNOW how many verses cite the reality of "good people"? Dozens.
Jesus his own self mentions the reality of good people several times - more than I cited already. But I won't be repeating what I've already laid out. Then there are people like
Moses,
Noah,
Enoch (?),
Lot,
Job,
Abel,
Zechariah and Elizabeth (John the Baptist's parents),
Joseph of Arimathea,
Cornelius,
Barnabas,
and others (sometimes unnamed, sometimes just generally referred to as an accepted reality that "the rain falls on the good and the evil," which presumes good people, plural) who demonstrated themselves to be good people.
Y'all's problem is that you irrationally and entirely gracelessly want to insist that "good=perfect," but that's full-of-shit-blasphemy and just plain stupid reading comprehension/bad English and poor reasoning. It's irrational and nonsensical and just plain dumb. It's an abuse of the language and of the Bible. It demonstrates sub-grade school understanding and capacity for reading comprehension.
I encourage you men to become better, more grace-full, less irrational and cruel humans. Be better. You CAN do it. Both reason and the Bible make that clear.
Glenn gracelessly and cruelly and irrationally stated:
Anyone who had children has watched them sin and they were never taught to sin or what sin is until they well into the toddler stages and yet they sin in many ways.
I've had children and worked with many others. There were very few, if any, that I would call "bad" children. They were merely imperfect humans, not yet having reached mature reasoning capacity or self-control.
Although almost to a one, they all had better reasoning capacity and self-control than you all.
Do children and adults sometimes "do wrong" or "miss the mark..."? YES, that humans are imperfect is a given and observable reality. THAT we can see objectively and is not in dispute.
What we CAN'T see objectively are:
A "sin nature"'
"inherited sin nature, inherited from a mythical Adam and passed on to all of humanity";
Many other mythical tropes;
That humans are so corrupted by sin that they somehow "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity in your mythical "hell.";
That there are "no good humans"
Look, you boys are free to believe in all the irrational myths and conspiracies that you want. But you can't expect rational, morally reasoning people to go along with such graceless irrational nonsense.
Just admit you can't prove your theories objectively and stick with, "But I really think it's true, even if I can't prove it..." THAT would be one step in grace and humility and demonstrating that you all ARE capable of moral reasoning.
But these attempts to try to impotently bully others into accepting your stupid little graceless, godless, irrational, immoral hunches as facts are just an embarrassment to you all.
Marshal irrationally and fallaciously claimed:
it remains the true definition according to my Lord and Savior
It's STILL question begging. The question being, "When Jesus said that there was no one good but God to the RYR, was he being hyperbolic or was he actually redefining the notion of "good..."?"
Marshal is claiming something like, "It's right there in the text so it MUST mean that Jesus is redefining 'good,' because it's there... AND I really think he meant it that way!!" is childish and a question begging fallacy. The point is not DO YOU presume he meant it literally? The point is that Jesus and other biblical authors/speakers regularly engaged in hyperbole and figurative speech... given the reality of Jesus ALSO speaking of "good people" - MORE times than this one off throw-away line that was not the point of the story - WHY would anyone presume he meant this literally? ESPECIALLY when we can objectively observe actually good people in the real world?"
Stating dumbly, "but, but, but,... it's right there, and I REALLY think he meant it literally" is NOTHING more than question begging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I have no confidence that Marshal will actually address my real world example of our many Down Syndrome friends, many of whom are CLEARLY good people, but I'd throw it open to Craig and Glenn, as well.
Do you all DARE to state as a (false) "fact" that, "NO, these Down Syndrome people I know are NOT good people. They are BAD people, deserving of eternal torture if they don't accept my personal irrational/graceless theory of "blood atonement" to satisfy and "angry god" so he doesn't kill them forever."
Assuming you know some actually quite good people with Down Syndrome, are you evil and graceless and pathetic and soul-sick enough to call them "bad people..."?
If so, then may there be a hell just for the sake of your sick, sad souls.
September 11, 2026 at 8:38 AM
"Look, let's cut to the chase."
By all means. Let's.
"I AM looking at the Bible which I love..."
Except the many parts you don't, such as Mark 10:18.
"...AND reality, which I accept..."
What for you passes for "reality" is no more than you preferences...not anything you've ever taken the time to confirm as actual reality. You throw that word around (as you do so many words) to force your subjective and self-satisfying version of "reality" on your opponents, pretending it's established fact and proceed from there, deriding and disparage those who don't accept your subjective, self-serving version. Thus, every mention of the word indicates a small mind closed to true "respectful, adult and 'good faith'" discourse.
" and I AM seeking to follow God"
As you want Him to be, not as He is according to the Scripture you pretend to "love".
"...and I read these passages and as a point of fact in the real world, I do NOT find your interpretations plausible..."
No kidding.
"... for a wide range of biblical, moral, rational and objectively factual reasons."
None you've ever presented. You've simply thrown shit on the plate and called it food. And here again you abuse "rational and objectively factual" to presume opposing understandings aren't as a matter of course. There are at least 3 or 5 logical fallacies under which this gambit can fall.
"You don't have to accept reality, but that IS the reality of why I disagree with your personal little human hunches."
I accept reality...such as the reality that there is no one good but God alone. I just don't accept your subjective and self-serving notion of what reality is. Furthermore, as if I haven't at least alluded to this, invoking the word "reality" is just you lying rather than meeting the challenge of this post.
"On the other hand, you look at these passages and somehow, your traditions/interpretations make sense to YOU, personally, and mine don't make sense to you."
I look at these citations and trust that the source of the citations are wholly reliable, especially Mark 10:18 and any other spoken by God (Father or Son). It makes sense to take those verses as they're written, given that they're easy to understand as such, straightforward to the degree that deep thought is not required to understand them, and that there is nothing in Scripture which compels me otherwise. THAT is what makes sense. No verse I cite needs to make personal sense to me to believe it as written (ex. "Why would He say such a thing?"), because what may or may not make sense to me doesn't mitigate the truth of the verse. That being said, there's nothing about the citations you're incapable of explaining away for the reason they appear on the list which justifies saying, "they don't make sense."
Also, I'm not "interpreting" them. I'm just reading them and understanding them because they're so straightforward in conveying the message intended. I don't buy YOUR "interpretations" because yours aren't even "interpretations". They're just wordy "Nyuh uhs...it doesn't mean what it says!" You're doing all this Trabue shit instead of providing the true meaning you pretend I'm not getting. You're so insistent that I have them wrong, the correct message must to obvious to you, yet, I get all this nonsense instead.
"In other words, we disagree about interpretations, both of us doing so far what we find to be compelling reasons."
In better words, I seek to conform to Scripture and you insist Scripture must conform to you.
"You can't deny that I find my reasons more biblical, rational and compelling..."
I don't try. I simply acknowledge your reasons aren't any of those things and what for you passes for attempts to support the claim fails to do so. And blatantly.
"...and I'm not trying to deny that you don't find your little reasons (no matter HOW irrational or morally awful or how much I think your theories would belittle and trivialize an almighty God, making your god into a pathetic whimsical bully) to be more biblical and compelling."
How very typical and unChristian of you to contrast our understandings in this asshole manner.
"What then?"
How about returning your focus to the challenge you've been avoiding for these 100+ comments (I'm pretending your focus was ever there in the first place)? That would be great.
"Who decides who is right, since neither of us can objectively prove it (at least, not if you're not willing to accept reality!)."
We can talk about which of us is "right" when you actually provide alternative understandings for what each of the cited verse mean. That's the "respectful, adult and good faith" response to a post which provides what YOU demanded of me regarding the Biblical teaching of man's sin nature.
"This is why your lack of a rubric or perfect pope to GIVE us the Objective Right answers undermines your certainty."
Ah! "The Rubric Angle"! wherein you pretend Scripture isn't a rubric and avoid responding to Scriptural evidence which confounds your objection to the fact of "man's sin nature" being a Biblical concept.
"Look, I'm FINE with you saying, "I find my explanation more compelling and yours not compelling at all..." I'm just pushing back against any suggestion that your answers are "proven" until I find some way to convince you otherwise."
Here's what I'm actually saying: "The concept or principle that we are each of us born with a sin nature is Biblical and each of my cited verses attest to that principle, despite not being a truly comprehensive list of verses I could have brought to bear, and that since you claimed it isn't Biblical and that I need to prove it is, you are now tasked with providing an alternative meaning each of those verses are conveying which a plain reading of them doesn't compel any honest person to conclude.
Any plans to provide that before I die?
"That's not proof. That's subjective arrogance."
My citations are "proofs" in respond to YOUR demands I provide it to support the claim that "sin nature" is a Biblical concept. The only way to "prove" they aren't the "proofs" you demand is to "prove" they don't mean what the words on the page convey to any honest person by a plain reading. The arrogance is in your dancing away from your obligation...self-inflicted by your own arrogant attack on me for daring to suggest something you don't want to accept is Biblical.
Clearly you can't come up with a way to make your shit smell better. Just admit it stinks and concede the principle is Biblical. Be a man for a change.
I've proven that your opinions are not the only options. I've presented a rational AND biblical AND moral case for my opinion which YOUR nutty little human theory fails. You are just too blinded by your human traditions to recognize that. That's YOUR failure and why you've lost this discussion, even though you may not understand just how BADLY you've failed and how very graceless, immoral, unbiblical, irrational and bad/stupid/inept your theories are and you've demonstrated your capacity for moral reasoning.
That's on you.
I'm just now waiting to see deep your immoral depravation goes and to see if you answer these last questions I've asked. If nothing else, you're proving how graceless and "bad" and irrational SOME humans are.
September 11, 2026 at 10:49 AM
"1. I mean, first and foremost, that it's not a political given..."
What???
""the Bible" doesn't at all insist upon your human theories are factually correct... the biblical authors don't insist upon that, GOD does not insist upon that. It IS your human opinion."
Here you go again, insisting if the Bible, its writers or God doesn't say what you now demand they must in order for something to be true, then no one who disagrees with your self-serving heresies can be stating facts and truth. No. If one doesn't agree with Dan Trabue, it's never any more than "human opinion". (what an incredibly stupid phrase!) Everything is Scripture as written is true and factual (if you want to mention "four corners of the earth" or "newborns lying", slap the crap out of yourself first) intended to be understood as such. On what basis should any honest person imagine otherwise?? It's absurd on its face, and just another Dan-weasel argument.
"2. I further mean that it's certainly not objectively factual."
For the purpose of this discussion, my citations stand as evidence that the principle of "man's sin nature" is objectively Biblical fact...a fact you've as yet failed to prove is not.
"It's literally a human interpretation."
Fine. You insist on using this moronic device as if it has any merit whatsoever. So when do we get to see YOUR alternative "interpretation"??? That is, after all, the point of this post.
One is an acceptable theory (even if horribly irrational and not consistent with overarching biblical messages), whereas the latter is an unsupported claim that doesn't necessarily follow.
What IF it turns out that you meet God and God tells you, "No, that was not what I intended at all. Of course, there are good people. How do you not know this?" What would you say to God?
"I'm pushing back against the hubris found in many conservatives that their human traditions are objectively factual and no people CAN disagree with their human opinions and traditions."
That's quite a fantasy, but the reality is that you're just petulantly dancing away from your obligation to put up or shut up. You're doing neither and this claim that conservatives are the arrogant class is hubris itself. The challenge you're too cowardly to meet...never mind overcome...isn't "hubris" or "arrogance" simply because we accept the cited verses as written and presented as truthfully told facts/truths (sounds redundant, doesn't it?). We just read. What we read we find quite simple to understand, mostly because we don't regard Scripture as written to confound, but to convey God's Truth so that we can easily understand what He expects of us as followers. Where is there arrogance or hubris so far? Then, some schmuck asserts that "Stop" on that stop sine doesn't mean "STOP!" and we're to simply accept we're somehow not understanding.because the schmuck doesn't like stopping. THAT is arrogance. Abiding the plain reading and conveying that message to others is not "arrogance" by any stretch of the imagination...not even when some schmuck asserts we're misunderstanding despite not presenting an alleged better understanding. No, schmuck. The arrogance and hubris is all yours. We're just waiting for the "truth" you pretend we're missing. Will provide before we die?
"3. Further, I find the claims to be contrary to a rational good faith reading of the biblical authors."
YOUR "reading of the biblical authors" is neither "rational" nor "good faith" simply because you assert it is. And even if I was to believe you were capable of either, you're not manifesting it by your refusal to take on the challenge in a rational, good faith manner.
"Yes, Jesus used the words "no one is good but God" BUT, Jesus also talked about the obvious reality of good people."
You've not proven this, either. Your weak offerings did not depict and episode of Jesus describing any particular person as "good", but only described how a "good" person acts to distinguish one from an evil person.
"It's not rationally possible that the claim "All people are NOT good" and "some people ARE good.""
The latter clam was not made by Jesus as was demonstrated at the time you tried to prove otherwise.
"Do you recognize that this is a fundamentally irrational claim?"
It's irrational to present a claim which was made and compare it against one which wasn't and expect that anyone must attempt to resolve the difference.
"3A. On the other hand, given the obvious observable reality of biblical authors and speakers engaging in hyperbole and figurative language, it IS quite biblical and credible that various speakers have said "NO ONE IS GOOD!" and "As an infant, I was lying and no good!" in a hyperbolic sense, to emphasize the reality that we are indeed capable of doing wrong, without it needing to be literally true."
Ironically, you standard attempt to speak of hyperbole and the like as if truth and fact can't be expressed when they're used actually supports my claim the Bible teaches of our sin nature. Jesus wasn't being hyperbolic, and there's no way you can support there was even the slightest possibility He was. As such, His pronouncement in any case points to our sin nature...and as such is evidence it's a Biblical teaching. So, too, the "hyperbole" of infants speaking lies, which was used to point to the sin nature of the speaker, who by your argument can only mean some people (even those who are men after God's own heart) can be born with a sin nature while not everyone else necessarily are, which requires some way to ascertain those others lived a perfectly sinless life. OTHERWISE, you're left with suggesting that "good" people sin, which necessarily means they aren't truly good at all. God is good because He doesn't sin and there's no sin in Him. Which leads to this:
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:8-10 (NIV)
"3B. It's "unbiblical" then, says I, because to say "no one is good," directly conflicts with Jesus claim that there ARE good people."
YOUR claim that Jesus made THAT claim has not been supported with evidence by you. Thus, it conflicts with a fiction of your liking.
>o?"3C. It's further unbiblical in the sense that it's part of of this whole bad news "salvation scheme" you hold in your human tradition, in that it undermines biblical teachings of a Loving and Just God... indeed, I find it to be blasphemous, this whole,
all people are evil >
all people are deserving of eternal torture >
but God WILL save some small percentage of humanity >
IF (and only if) these "some people" are "called" by God to be saved, to accept God's grace >
for that small remnant, they will be saved by a "blood sacrifice" payment scheme.."
You mean, "The Good News" Jesus brought to the poor. I don't much care that you don't like the truth of why Jesus came, and what His message and purpose was. I care right now that you made a claim against me, I provided evidence your claim against me was in error, and you've thus far failed to provide evidence of some other understanding of the citations I've provided. Get busy.
"That whole set of conditions are antithetical to the notions of grace and a good and loving God that is spelled out biblically AND which holds ground rationally."
Your spelling omits most of the letters, leaving only those you find personally pleasing. There's nothing rational about that. Yours is a re-written Bible shorter than Thomas Jefferson's. He only eliminated the miracles.
"Now, I ask you again: what do YOU mean by "it's biblical..."?"
OK. I'll repeat myself again: Think of all the times you referred to the positions held by me and others on this side of the divide as "not Biblical" and what that meant when you said it, and then reverse it.
I'll repeat what is even more important: you don't get to call ANY shots here. The challenge presented in this post is not to define "Biblical", but for you to explain what the cited verses mean (verses presented to prove the concept of man's sin nature IS a Biblical teaching) if not what a plain reading of the unambiguous words conveys. You never saw fit to define the term when you first began accusing us of defending that which you don't want to be Biblical. You don't get to deflect from your obligation to satisfy the challenge by asking how I define it now. It's irrelevant and no answer I might give would relieve you of your obligation to educate me on the proper understanding of those clearly stated verses.
"And to reiterate: where you say...
it's hard for me (or anyone else who can read) to suppose that means the principles don't exist in Scripture,
It's one thing to say, "I can FIND in various hand picked bible passages, verses that to me promote this human evangelical theory/system..."
and it's another thing to say, "Those principles DO exist objectively in various Bible verses.""
More weasel words, but it doesn't matter. Your deflection is not allowed. Stick to the point of the post or admit that you have no way to defend your position that I'm misunderstanding the verses and what they're confirming about the Biblical teaching of our sin nature. Did you ever have testicles or are your kids the product of a sperm donor?
Oops! I missed the following nonsense:
"And to reiterate: where you say..."
it's hard for me (or anyone else who can read) to suppose that means the principles don't exist in Scripture,
"It's one thing to say, "I can FIND in various hand picked bible passages, verses that to me promote this human evangelical theory/system..."
and it's another thing to say, "Those principles DO exist objectively in various Bible verses.""
But the truth is that the verses I chose to cite are among many which attest to the fact that we are each of us born with a sin nature. It "promotes to me" that concept is true because it teaches that concept. If it didn't, you wouldn't be avoiding your obligation to show how the verses don't stand as evidence it's what Scripture teaches.
"One is an acceptable theory (even if horribly irrational and not consistent with overarching biblical messages), whereas the latter is an unsupported claim that doesn't necessarily follow."
It's not a "theory", it's an obvious and unmistakable teaching of Scripture. It's not taught in an ambiguous manner. It's straightforward such that honest people cannot deny it. One way to disabuse honest people of that fact is to provide evidence that the verses aren't supporting that concept as a Biblical teaching. You're clearly incapable of doing that and merely hoping your haranguing will push me to ignore what Scripture teaches.
"What IF it turns out that you meet God and God tells you, "No, that was not what I intended at all. Of course, there are good people. How do you not know this?" What would you say to God?"
I love when you do this. Nothing screams desperation...nothing affirms you're defeated than your invention of these hysterical hypotheticals. God wouldn't tell me that, for then He'd have to explain why He lied in Scripture, or why three Gospel writers were allowed to lie that there is no one good but God alone.
"I have no confidence that Marshal will actually address my real world example of our many Down Syndrome friends...."
That's because you're a douchebag who, due to your clearly evident sin nature, chooses to drop the posturing of being a Christian to disparage my character once again...which wouldn't be so bad if you disparaged it according to my actual shortcomings. But being a douchebag, you have to project onto your opponents that which makes them seem to be worse people than you are. We've come to expect that from you.
The fact is I have no reason not to respond to everything you try to pervert into support for your erroneous position on the Biblical teaching of man's sin nature. This is evident by all the comments of mine responding to every one of yours thus far, even a couple meant for Craig or Glenn. As such, I'll have no problem responding to your "real world example". I have a considerable amount of close experience and exposure to the mentally disadvantaged, and I don't mean just you. I just don't exploit them as you're doing in your "real world example". You'll just have to wait until I get to it, as I'm hitting all your tap-dancing and avoidance of your obligation one at a time. It'll go faster if you virtually shut the fuck up for a while so I can catch up. I haven't gotten myself into the habit of forcing life to revolve around you, so patience on your part is required.
In the meantime, no one is obliged to give this request of yours the time of day, for I'm sure they're as anxious as I am to see how you provide the true understanding of each of the verses I've cited. You're doing a shit job so far, particularly with Mark 10:18.
Oh, well, that makes ALL the difference!
Why would the Bible insist on what you want to call my "human theories"??? The Bible merely presents the truth and I accept it and present it as well. Nothing I say comes from me (kinda taking an example from Jesus) but comes from the Word of God as revealed to us in Scripture. Again, I just read and if what I read means something other than what the words I've read suggest, it's up to those like you who disagree with what the words I've read suggest to explain with evidence what they mean instead. Just like this freakin' post is all about!
This might be a repeat of another comment, but yours was so stupid it bears refuting again.
Marshal cowardly but predictably said...
"In the meantime, no one is obliged to give this request of yours the time of day,..."
There it is. Some glimmering light of a sense of decency, a sense of shame, and a sense of understanding the hole in your wicked pathetic sin-sick argument. You clearly recognize at some level how evil it would be for you to choose to call such fellow humans "not good" or "bad," even. You recognize that this points to a hole in your argument because, of course, these are good people, just like other people are good people. Your shame in refusing to even address it shows that you recognize it at some level. You're done. You lost. You're exposed as a coward and an irrational supporter of cruel and inhumane and insane human theories and conspiracies.
On every point you've lost this argument. Even if you don't understand it. Which, too, is to your shame.
That's all.
Dan
September 11, 2026 at 7:02 PM
"Look, Marshal, those are all cute little personal human opinions of yours that you hold in your little head. They are very cute little opinions, subjective and not proven to be facts. They are NOT objective facts. They are YOUR interpretation, your take, nothing more than that. Do you understand that?"
I understand that the truth is not in you...that it's anathema to you. This is crystal clear to all of us who have dealt with you over the past two decades. And because you're so fearful of truth, I'm going to again clarify the situation here:
You balk at the notion of all of humanity is born with a sin nature. This is an essential Christian teaching, and the source of this teaching is the essential Christian source for Christian teaching we call, "The Holy Bible". In order to debate an issue relative to the Christian faith, the Bible is the essential source. Thus, objective proof that any given claim is Biblical is that which can be found in the Bible. (This is very basic stuff).
Now, this is apart from debates about specific understandings of specific verses, passages or even entire Books of the Bible. But the issue on the table here is this claim of yours that there's no such Biblical teaching that each of us is born with a sin nature. Each of the verses I cited in this post refers to that very teaching, some more directly than others, but all absolutely do based on the plain reading of each of them (it is not by any means a comprehensive list, not that a longer list would make a difference to a heretic notorious for rejecting any from Scripture which does not conform to the heretic's personally pleasing narrative). The challenge of this post (directed most specifically to you, though open to anyone who feels as you do) is to present, therefore, THE REAL MEANING of each of the verses if the meaning a plain reading suggests is not true.
So, my objective proof for my position are the cited verses themselves, because they stand in direct affirmation of my position that indeed, the Bible teaches us that we are each born with a sin nature. If all I had were ONLY the verses I cited, that would be enough OBJECTIVE PROOF that the concept is indeed a Biblical teaching UNTIL someone like you can prove those verses mean something different than what a plain reading states.
So here we are over one hundred comments in and you've yet to provide OBJECTIVE PROOF of your own that the verses mean something different. Indeed, as you've spent most of your time trying to argue about whether or not there are any human beings who are good despite Jesus stating no one is good but God alone, you've even failed famously to refute that truth told from Christ's own lips as recounted in three of the four Gospels.
Thus, what all the above means is that I've not presented any opinions at all, but merely restated what the Bible itself actually presents by the authors of the various Books repeating what God Himself has said, either directly or through His Prophets and Apostles. If you cannot provide evidence from Scripture which reveals a different understanding of any of the cited verses, then those verses remain standing as OBJECTIVE PROOF that the concept of man's sin nature is Biblical...a Biblical teaching...a Biblical fact.
To drive home the point a bit more, I'm not in any way required to go outside the Bible to prove what the Bible teaches. Moreover, i don't have to prove that I understand what I present is an accurate understanding if all you're going to do is disparage the understanding without evidence to refute it...that is, to PROVE OBJECTIVELY that my understanding is erroneous. You haven't come within a light year of doing anything like that.
That's what reality looks like.
"The question remains: WHO in the name of all that is holy and reasonable cares what YOUR personal little human opinion is?"
If I was presenting only opinion, the answer would be "no one is so required". You are required to disprove what I present as factual if indeed you insist on saying that it isn't. Frankly, that's true even if it's indeed only an opinion I'm presenting (which isn't at all the case here, as I've clearly explained). You don't get to just crap on it. You have to bring evidence...or at least a compelling argument, though you're incapable of that as history has shown...to rebut opinions you don't like and then to support what you laughably think makes more sense.
"It's YOUR opinion not objective proof. That is what I am saying."
Yeah. I know. You're full of crap. Citing Scripture to defend against your claim that my position isn't Biblical is indeed objective proof that position is Biblical. You have to reject your default "Nyuh uh" defense and actually put in some effort. Phone a friend if you have to. You clearly need the help.
"We do not have to prove that you're wrong, all we have to do is point out how stupidly ridiculous your personal human opinions are and that they are your personal little human opinions not proof. Do you understand that?"
I understand that it's impossible to point out my positions are "stupidly ridiculous" without proving them wrong. You haven't done that. You're just doing that logical fallacy thing about defending your premise by stating your premise. You could not be more lame.
"So where you say..."
"As things stand, it can't mean anything else but that "No one is good but God". "
"That is nothing more than your own personal little diuretic bullshit blowing out of your brain."
How very much evidence of your sin nature to say it like that! But since you haven't come close to presenting an evidence-supported argument that it means something else, it can't mean anything else but that "No one is good but God".
"It's not proof."
But I don't need to prove it's what Jesus meant. YOU need to prove He meant something else. What would that be? Do you plan on filling us in? Thus far, all you've given us is some nonsensical and disconnected drivel about the Pharisees and rich dudes. Your erroneous bloviating about "context" has no bearing on the truth of this statement by Christ. THAT is what is at issue here, not the imagined context you think has any bearing on it without explaining exactly how (and without evidence).
"It's not anything but a personal little human opinion and a stupid one at that. You are not God! It's not your call to make, little man."
I don't need to be God to accept what Jesus said is true. You need to be a man of integrity and honor and provide evidence to show how it means something other than what Jesus's words clearly state. What Jesus said isn't an opinion. It's a fact. And no....we don't need to have been there at the time to record it on our cell phones to prove He actually said it. You have to prove that three Gospel writers were lying in saying Jesus said that. So, as we know that's what He said, what He said suggests we are each born with a sin nature given that one of the most significant aspect which makes God good is that He is without sin...as in, without a sin nature, since His nature is pure Goodness and Truth.
"And Craig is worried about me referencing myself when I'm talking about my opinion. At least I don't confuse myself with God Almighty. You lose, Marshal."
Craig's not worried. You've convinced him long ago. All you do is base everything primarily on what you prefer is true and then assert that your preference....your unsupportable opinion...is reality. I don't confuse myself with God, but you've constantly shown you've place Him in a subordinate level to you. I've not lost. You don't even know where the field is!
And keep in mind, Nancy...Mark 10:18 is but one of several verses I've cited. You can't hope to rebut or refute any of the others if you can't get past the fact that Jesus stated a fact and fact or not (it's a fact), what He said points to the reality of man's sin nature.
September 12, 2026 at 10:43 AM
"At this point I've repeatedly cited evidence that means the text does not have to be read the way that you personally think makes sense."
Ah...I think I see the problem. YOU think this challenge, which I've explained a half-dozen times or so, is about proving the verses don't have to be read the way I personally thinks makes most sense. But that's not the challenge at all. The challenge is that if the verse DON'T mean what a plain reading of them states, then you're obliged to offer up an alternative understanding of what they mean (DESPITE what a plain reading states) with evidence from Scripture to support it.
But of course you can't do that, so rather than admit that these verses do indeed prove that we are each born with a sin nature, you change the rules of the game in which you're only a participant, not the one making the challenge. Doing this is the only way you can support your claim that man's sin nature is not Biblical. Just saying that's the reality is just your childish petulance.
"Your personal little opinion is meaningless when it comes to objective proof."
Your constant deflection and tap-dancing is meaningless when it comes to proving...or even suggesting a possibility...that the verses mean something other than that which a plain reading of the states.
"If you want to say, "Yes I really think it means this," that's fine as long as you're clear that it's YOUR personal little opinion."
I don't need your permission to say anything, even if I was stating an opinion. But I wasn't and still am not. The Bible does indeed assert very firmly and emphatically that we are each born with a sin nature. My citations are proof of that. OBJECTIVE PROOF!
"There's plenty of reason, as I've cited already, to NOT take it the way you do."
You've cited NOTHING but your opinion, "supported" by inappropriate applications of verses which aren't relevant or in any way on topic.
"Including rational, biblical reasons and moral reasons."
Not even close. Indeed, that's three strikes.
Marshal...
"I don't want him to "explain" anything. I want him to PROVE the verses I cite don't stand as evidence for the principles he doesn't want to believe are Biblical. "
"That is a confusing sentence. Perhaps you'd want to restate it."
Sure. My pleasure.
I WANT YOU TO PROVE THE VERSES I CITED DON'T STAND AS EVIDENCE OF THE PRINCIPLE YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IS BIBLICAL!
How's that?
"At this point I've proven solidly that the texts and verses that you've cherry-picked out of context don't HAVE to mean what you personally think they mean"
Again, not the challenge I put to you and you haven't actually done even what you just said. I never argued that anything has to mean what I "think" they mean. I'm saying these verses mean what a plain reading shows they mean and if you want to argue against that, you need to show how these verses can possibly mean something apart from what the words themselves convey and evidence to support that possibility. To use my standard example which even someone of your limited intellectual capabilities should be able to grasp, if you want to say the STOP sign means something other than STOP, it's not up to me to prove it just means what the sign says we're to do when we confront it. You have to prove it means something else, not whine that you don't have to accept what I say it means.
"AND your pet passages can reasonably be understood as contrary to sound biblical teachings..."
Except that it IS "sound Biblical teachings". So rather than me insisting you accept what I "think" the verses mean, you want ME to accept that they might possibly mean something you can't even explain. Make that make sense.
"(not to mention basic common sense and morality, reasoning)"
You mean YOUR "understanding" of common sense, morality and reasoning for which you have no basis. Once again, you're using your premise to prove your premise.
"That is an objective fact. Do you understand the distinction?"
Once again, you're using your premise to prove your premise.
"In other words I've never said that you don't have the opinion that you have because you read verses in the Bible and you take them to mean what you think they mean. I've never said that's not the case. I've said that the way you take them is not the only way to take them and that there are other solidly biblical reasons to reject your silly little opinions as irrational and immoral and unbiblical. And even blasphemous."<./i>
No, Nancy. Blasphemy is your understanding of God. You've demonstrated long ago that you've rejected the One True God of Scripture for an idol you pretend is the same God.
And you can keep saying my "way of taking the verses is not the only way to take them". But aside from the fact that I'm not interpreting them, but just reading them as they are and going with it, your repetition of this absurdity is meaningless without presenting your alternative "way" of "taking" them with evidence from Scripture to back it up. What you've offered thus far...aside from several dozen comments of just whining over and over again...has been shown to be far from sufficient to support any other understanding of the verses, even if you provided that alternative understanding, which you haven't. You provide no Biblical reasons to reject "taking" the verses as they are written. You haven't even provide a possible alternative meaning of the one verse on which you've spent so much time. You've simply stated that because you know a bunch of people YOU regard as "good", that therefore Jesus wasn't speaking truthfully or literally. But if He was speaking figuratively, why can't you provide that alternative meaning??
And you dare suggest I've lost!
That's all for tonight. Hold you water. I'm not done yet.
Well, apparently disagreeing with Dan is now lying. As if Dan is somehow the one who makes those decisions.
I stand by my opinion, that you and your eisegesis isn't compelling.
The problem with your big gotcha example is that it still hinges on how you are defining "good". Further the problem with evaluating these hypothetical people is that we lack first hand knowledge. All we have is your unproven claims about them. What an absurd demand. To demand that we pass judgement on someone else's "goodness" based only on your claims is one of the stupider things you've done recently.
The claim you appear to be making and demanding that we agree with is "People with Down's Syndrome" are all "good" and must be considered "good" regardless of any other factor.". Well, that's just stupid.
Speaking for myself, I don't see how making this sort of judgement with no actual first hand data is good in any possible sense.
FYI, and I doubt you'll deal with this.
If people with Down's are such "good" and wonderful people, why do so many believe that it should be tested for and any baby who tests positive be aborted?
You asserting something isn't proving that your assertion is True. Of course, this claim also renders all of your claims to be mere opinions and equally unworthy of consideration by your standard.
Dan is really going after this whole magical incantation BS,
September 12, 2026 at 11:05 AM
"Tell me,
IF an unbiased reader
wholly unfamiliar with these theories of yours
or Christian tenets, in general,
IF they read the gospel stories, would you think that this reader would say, "Oh yes, Jesus is teaching and defining something very much like modern evangelicals would call Christianity," or would you see that that is not clear or direct in Jesus' teachings?"
This is a nonsensical question and another of Dan's deflection tactics. If the person is honest, unbiased and sincerely reading to learn about the faith, how could this person NOT regard Mark 10:18 a direct teaching of Jesus, given it is stated directly and unambiguously? Dan supposes that an honest person wouldn't because Dan doesn't want that anyone should take Jesus at His word if Dan doesn't like what Jesus is saying. And this is the reality of this whole Dan-ish diversionary tactic. Dan doesn't like what Jesus is saying about mankind, so he pretends there must be some other meaning which he has yet to present to us.
"Do you think they would conclude:
Jesus is clearly teaching that there are NO good humans and
that ALL humans are deserving of eternal torment in a place called "hell"
and that the ONLY way NOT to get what they "deserve" is to accept a
"blood payment" from Jesus' blood from his execution to "pay for" their "sin debt" that arose from their innate "sin nature..."?"
They would absolutely conclude, if they are truly honest and sincere in their desire to learn, that Mark 10:18 states "There is no one good but God alone" as a fact. The rest of this question, an attempt to include other Biblical teachings Dan rejects because it offends his sensitive MLTU bent, wouldn't even occur to an honest student at this point. It's a moronic attempt to further move the discussion Dan's way and that way is away from the Truth of Christianity.
Dan can't focus on the challenge presented to him by my post, and now he can't even focus on his own avoidance tactics by moving from the Mark 10:18 statement of fact by Jesus to Dan's other rejection of Biblical teaching he doesn't like. Good gosh. When does the "good faith" discourse ever begin with this guy?
"I'd say there is no way in hell (forgive the mythical allusion) that any person would come away from a fresh, unbiased reading of the four Gospels with those conclusions."
Oh really???? What a shocker that your imaginary seeker would see things your way! Who'd ever have anticipated you'd say that???
"I'd further say there's no way they'd come away from a fresh unbiased reading of the OT in whole with those conclusions."
They'd have to have as poor a level of comprehension skills as you, as well as the same MLTU bent as you, as well as the same high degree of dishonesty because of their own sin nature.
"Your conclusions can ONLY be reached if you were indoctrinated to believe the calvinist/modern evangelical traditions."
Not a Calvinist. Never learned about the Truth you reject from any Calvinist. Never got far in attempting to study what Calvinism is due to falling asleep out of boredom. MY grasp of the Truth of Christianity is from my own research, which means I was indoctrinated by the True doctrine of Christianity.
"Indeed, in the real world, I BELIEVED that modern conservative evangelical group of theories..."
It's not a "modern conservative evangelical group of 'theories'". It's clear and unambiguous Christianity.
"... and I left them, one by one, because the support just wasn't there in the pages of the bible and within just common sense and rational thought..."
You left them to appease your leftist, anti-Christ leanings and your devotion to the influence of the world.
"and it wasn't even that I WANTED to abandon modern evangelical religiosism,"
You mean, "Christianity">
"but I had a stronger debt to God and the pages/teachings of the bible and specifically Jesus that pushed me away from your type of theories."
Nonsense. Your being enamored with the things of this world pushed you to reject Christianity.
"And beyond my allegiance to God, the Biblical witness and Jesus,"
Which is the lie you tell to posture as "good" so as to impress the world.
" it was the bad reasoning/bad faith "arguments" that conservative religionists embraced when they abused the bible to try to force their personal human traditions that pushed me away from conservative religiosity."
And this is the greater lie, that to embrace the things of this world, you disparage those who put the Truth of Christianity above the world as abusers of Scripture. What a perfect example of "bearing false witness"!!
September 12, 2026 at 1:26 PM
"Craig thinks he has stumbled onto something special and a deal-breaker with his reference to Agathos. The word Agathos means GOOD in a variety of senses. There is no one PERFECTLY good like God. That's not in dispute. BUT, that doesn't mean that there are NO humans that are good, as the word is used in the New Testament. Do you understand that?"
I don't know about Craig, but what I understand is that you're not dealing with the definition of good, but to whom the word my be applied for whatever reason. That is to say, with Jesus defining the word as He did, does that prevent anyone from applying the word to people or situations not God or His actions? No. It doesn't. The Mark 19:18 verse simply clarifies what "good" actually means and is. At the same time, it presents the fact that despite our best efforts, nothing we do makes us "good" nor does any good works prove that we are. This is true if what Jesus said is true, and as a Christ-follower, along with the fact that I regard Jesus as speaking with intent and purpose, there is no reason....and certainly none for which you've provided evidence there might be...to not accept what Jesus said as the truth He meant to convey, nor that it means we can't contrast people by their character and deeds as good when compared to others. Even if we ignore those we definitely wouldn't regard as "good", what remains is still nowhere near comparable to God and thus, not truly good at all. That Dan rejects this is a sign that he does not care about what Scripture teaches, but only that it must teach what Dan insists it must. This is because Dan is not just in the world, but of it.
https://ezraproject.com/agathosune-getting-practical-about-goodness/
This link in no way pushes Dan's ball across the goal line. It no more refutes Christ's truth claim that there is no one good but God alone than any mealy-mouthed weasel words Dan has presented thus far while not providing the alternative meaning he's required to provide.
"In short the reality that God (at least as I imagine God, although certainly not the case in y'all's wild imagination of god) is PERFECTLY good does not mean that humans can not also be good, because of course they are, as the word is used by Jesus in the context of the Bible."
The "God you imagine"??? You mean the God you've invented to replace the God with Whom you disagree. You're simply calling Jesus a liar by rejecting the plain truth about which He was unequivocal. Moreover, you've not presented a single verse wherein Jesus calls any specific person "good". That's not hard to understand given He said no one is good but God alone.
You lose yet again.
September 12, 2026 at 2:04 PM
"1. I've established objectively that in the Bible, it is said that there are NO humans who are good AND that there ARE good humans. BOTH things objectively exist in the Bible. Of course they do."
No. You most definitely have not. Your attempts to assert that Jesus or God referred to any person as "good" did not come with definitive Scriptural evidence to support them. Moreover, none of those failed attempts did a thing to provide the true or more likely meaning of Jesus's words in Mark 10:18.
"2. I've reminded us of the logical problem that both things can't simultaneously be factually true. That is objectively a rule of logic: A and NOT A can't both be simultaneously true."
You're comparing two things not at all in conflict. Rather, you're suggesting that Jesus's words can't be true if people are referred to as "good" as if doing so refers to their nature, rather than their actions and character (as in, they're of the character of sinners who seek to be good or who reflect...albeit imperfectly...God's goodness).
"Do you accept the reality that those are both things that I've objectively pointed out?"
You're not presenting reality. You're presenting what you demand we accept is reality, without confirming with evidence that it is. THIS is you insisting your opinion...unsupported as it is...is reality.
"Truly conversation does not have to be this difficult, men."
It is when little girly-types like you play your lying games...girl.
"Craig continued..."
"2. I love the goal post move here. You haven’t proven that Art’s plain reading of the text is absolutely wrong."
"There is no goal post move. If anything you are continuing to have reading comprehension problems. I've always been abundantly clear, over and over and over and over, throughout conversations for decades now, that we can't objectively prove our opinions about God's opinion or about Jesus' opinion or the author's opinion of a given text (not if we can't literally speak with them to confirm). We can't in the case of biblical authors."
This is far worse than a mere moving of the goal posts. It's a complete rejection of rules of play. We do NOT have to have direct confirmation from God (Father OR Son) or the Biblical authors that what they say means what they said. This world class moronic crap renders the entirety of Scripture worthless nonsense the atheists insist it is. Worse, it means you're relying on personally favored snippets of what you've rendered worthless to nonetheless have great value when YOU need it to be.
Scripture is true as written. If you want to insist some part of Scripture doesn't mean what a plain reading states it means, you're required to provide the true meaning as you believe it is with evidence to back it up. Everything we affirm about Scripture is based on a plain reading, and further affirmed with evidence where needed...evidence you reject not because you have any legitimate countervailing evidence of your own, but simply because you don't like or believe what Scripture plainly says. It's no more complicated or "nuanced" than that.
"I've never said I can objectively prove that the Bible teaches objectively that there are good humans."
No. You simply reject as "objective proof" Christ's own words because they don't say what you want to be true.
"What I've said is that I can point to biblical text, reason, and common sense to show that biblical authors do, in fact, objectively refer to good humans."
Yet you haven't done that. In every weak attempt you've made to that end thus far, I've explained specifically how they fail to be what you pretend they are. Indeed, NOTHING you've provided would be accepted by you as proof or evidence of anything were the roles reversed and this was taking place at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. You'd delete any comments where I'd present such weak crap, and that's proven by how you've deleted so much which contained far more compelling proofs and evidences for my positions and against yours. Indeed, it's blatantly insulting...typical of your unique sin nature... that you'd even dare bring this weak sauce here and expect it to be taken as a good faith attempt to prove what you can't even pretend is true.
"Their intent, you'll have to take it up with them but you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept your word for it."
Their intent in crystal clear by a plain reading of the text. It's their intent you refuse to accept because they dare to present truth you don't personally like.
"When a passage seems clearly to be hyperbole or otherwise not literal, I'm not going to take your word for it that it is literal. Does that not make sense to you?"
This is a dodge. You're again insisting the writing style means what's written cannot be taken as truth, which would make sense in specific cases where you've presented the true meaning of what was presented in a hyperbolic, figurative or metaphorical style, which you've never done for any truth you've rejected.
"What goal post do you think was moved?"
The one which requires you to provide the true meaning of a verse where a plain reading of the verse conveys a meaning you don't like. You know....what the post is about.
September 12, 2026 at 2:24 PM
"And I GET the simple little blather point you're trying to make. "God IS good, not God DOES good.""
Not a "simple little blather point", but factually a teaching of Jesus that no one is good but God alone.
" But what difference does it make what you think? Reality still knocks and you don't answer the door."
The "reality" is that there is no one good but God alone. We can know and trust this as reality because Jesus stated it as such, and there is nothing which so much as hints that He didn't mean it as stated. Thus, it's not at all what I "think". It's what Jesus so plainly and clearly confirmed.
"There ARE HUMANS who are good, too. Not PERFECTLY good, like a God, but still good. They have generally good motives, they're caring, compassionate, kind, decent.. they want to help and welcome and love and forgive. That is in the nature of some humans."
The nature of all humans is sinful. That's Biblical, too, and my citations affirm that. And if they don't mean what they say, then what do they mean? You need to focus all your efforts to either providing evidence-based alternatives from Scripture or concede that it's as true as stated.
I would also reiterate that when you say, "They have generally good motives, they're caring, compassionate, kind, decent.. they want to help and welcome and love and forgive.", you're judging those motives according to Dan Trabue's standards for goodness. That's a big problem right there, along with the problem of you failing to meet the challenge of this post.
"NOT perfectly, but it "good" does not insist upon perfection."
Who says that "good" doesn't insist on perfection? I don't expect any person to be perfect, but their lack of it means they're not good. That's not "good" as I apply the term to other people when contrasting them against others, not "good" as a matter of Biblical fact.
"Not in the Bible."
Dishonestly false, as Jesus's own words belies this fantasy.
Not in reality."
Again you refer to your premise to prove your premise. And you're woefully dishonest in doing so.
"Not as the word is understood..."
How the word is "understood" by mortal, imperfect human beings...especially MLTUs like yourself...is irrelevant to the truth confirmed by Jesus Himself.
"EVEN IF you imagine you have a super secret definition that really is "real" to you in your head."
The truth that there is no one good but God and thus "good" is defined as God-level goodness is not "super secret" at all, given the ubiquitous existence of the Holy Bible throughout the world.
"It doesn't matter if YOU think the definition of good should be "good as God," that ISN'T the definition of good."
Jesus clearly disagrees with you, and I follow Jesus.
"It's objectively not the definition of the Greek word translated good in your pet text and it's not the definition of good in standard English."
It's objectively the definition according to Jesus as He confirmed there is no one good but God. (Here we're referencing "good" as applied to human beings, who are each born with a sin nature our good Lord doesn't have.)
"You can have your own super secret dictionary if you want, Marshal, but reality does not require the rest of us to empower you to make the definitions."
And I can have the words of Jesus the Christ and you're free to reject Him as you've proven you do as a matter of routine, so embracing and driven as you are by your own sin nature
"Y'all are just so lost in your human traditions."
It's true. My human tradition of devotion to the Word and Will of God (Father, Son and Holy Ghost).
September 12, 2026 at 2:36 PM
Marshal:
Because God is GOOD, "good" exists at all
"Are you saying that this is your unproven theory?"
I'm saying good exists only because God does. How is this controversial to an alleged serious and prayerful student of Scripture?
"OR that you have objectively proven it by citing your little verse out of context?"
I don't know what you mean as each of my citations are truth claims which aren't dependent upon the contexts from which they are drawn in order for each to be true.
"If the latter, you know that this is not objective proof, right?"
You couldn't prove otherwise if I helped you lie harder.
"You see, one hole in your theory, one huge notion that you are sort of assuming but without proof, is that (it appears) you think that God "creates" or "defines" good and that without God defining Good, defining Morality, defining Wrong... those notions would not exist and we would have no way of guessing at them (because, presumably, you imagine a god and a universe of chaos and whimsy where things aren't right or wrong because they promote love and health, on the one hand or promote/cause harm and hate on the other)."
This crap sandwich would make Kamala Harris proud. I've offered no theory at any time. I've offered Christian teaching straight from Scripture. There's no "hole" in these teachings unless you're going to try and pretend God did not create all things. More than that stupidity is your ongoing dodging of your obligation to address the challenge put to you by this post.
"Is that your theory?"
I present no theories, but only Christian teaching, and I don't understand the theory you're trying to project upon me rather than satisfy your obligation to address the challenge of the post.
"And if so, do you acknowledge you have no objective proof of the theory and that truly, it sounds a little amoral and godless, itself. It sounds more like a whimsical demon of chaos, not a perfectly good God of Love and justice."
I'm not obliged to defend "theories" you project upon me, invented in order you can have something to describe as "a whimsical demon of chaos" because you don't want to defend your claim that Scripture doesn't teach that we are each born with a sin nature.
"Feel free to elaborate on your little human theories."
Christianity isn't a "little human theory". It's the way of Jesus Whom I follow. Feel free to defend your claim that we are not each born with a sin nature by providing the true meaning of the cited verses I presented in the post which each attest to that factual Biblical teaching.
September 12, 2026 at 3:09 PM
"Again, what do YOU mean by Biblical?"
Again, think of what you mean when you say principles and concepts you don't like aren't Biblical and then from that guess as to what "Biblical" might mean.
Again, stop fucking around instead of doing what you're supposed to be doing and provide the true meaning of each of the verses I've cited in the post if you to pretend they don't mean what a plain reading of them suggests.
"When I deny that it's biblical, I mean that "the Bible" does not, Jesus does not, the text does not, GOD ALMIGHTY does not INSIST that it be taken the way you, personally, are choosing to take it."
Unlike pretend Christians like you who look for any way to reject that in Scripture which has no personal appeal to you, ACTUAL Christians don't require that Scripture, nor God (Father OR Son) need "insist" that what it says is true and so plainly stated so that even the stupid like yourself can understand it...even when it runs counter to your personal agenda.
It is quite telling, however...though not at all surprising...that you need God to INSIST you accept His Will!
"AND that there are other biblical texts and basic common sense that argues against taking it that way. In THAT sense, it's not biblical."
Do you plan on presenting them any time before I die? Preferably that which presents "the REAL" meaning of the verses I've cited which affirm the Biblical teaching regarding our sin nature? That would be great.
"If you merely mean, "Here's a verse that makes me personally think Jesus is suggesting or even demanding that we should understand that humans have a "sin nature..."" IF that's all, and it makes YOU think that, well, I'm still not sure that's biblical. It's that you've found a verse that makes you feel better about accepting your human traditions and unproven theories."
Cut the crap, girl. You've been emphatic in rejecting the Biblical teaching regarding the truth that we are each born with a sin nature, such that you demanded I provide "PROOF!!!" that the concept is Biblical, and the non-comprehensive list of verses I've cited in the post which affirm that concept is Biblical is the volley you've yet to return. If you can't provide the "TRUE MEANING" of the verses I've provided, along with evidence to back it up, just concede the point that Scripture does indeed teach that we are each born with a sin nature. "Nyuh uh" won't get it done.
"So, once again, define "biblical" and define your super secret special-to-you definition of "good.""
So once again, remember this isn't your Blog of Lies and Perversions and you don't get to make demands. Remember also that you're the one who keeps screaming about Christian principles and concepts we present and defend aren't "Biblical". If you didn't/don't know what the word you chose to use means, you shouldn't have used it. You can look it up and debate its meaning after you've presented what you insist is the true meaning of the verses cited in the post. Moreover, if you don't have this alleged "TRUE MEANING" of those verses, you shouldn't have insisted they don't stand as true and legitimate evidence...indeed "PROOF!!!"...that Bible does indeed teach that we are each born with a sin nature!
"Also, what does it even MEAN to you all that there are no good people? What does that look like? How do you define that?"
It means, "There is no one good but God alone." just as Jesus confirmed. It was the first verse I cited, the first cited verse you've as yet failed to provide the "TRUE MEANING" which renders a plain reading of Jesus's clear statement impossible to decipher.
"That might be a step in the direction of you making more sense than you are currently."
Also telling that you find the true teachings of Scripture, including the easy to understand words of Jesus, insensible.
Marshal:
More importantly, there's nothing "simplistic" about Jesus's words in Mark 10:18.
"Sigh. Read for understanding. I'm not saying that Jesus' words are simplistic. I'm saying your understanding and take on this one line is simplistic."
You can "sigh" all you like, but there's nothing simplistic about the verse nor is there anything "simplistic" about taking it as written, especially since you're devoid of alternative understandings you're man enough to present. If it doesn't mean there is no one good but God alone, then what does it mean? It's simplistic to simply assert that such a straightforward statement is misunderstood to take it as it is presented without providing any reason or evidence to demonstrate it means something else. You're jerking around. Stop it. Get busy, Take up the challenge or admit that your rejection of the Biblical teaching of sin nature is no worse than something you personally don't like and thus reject without just cause.
"I'm not confusing you with Jesus."
You shouldn't. I'm not posing as Jesus. I'm simply repeating what He clearly said and expecting you to accept it as stated or prove it means something else.
"Marshal offered another little unsupported theory he thought up:"
Therefore, we strive to be good, though we are not, because God is good.
"Says who?"
Uh...Jesus in Mark 10:18. THAT'S Who!
"That is, is that your own little reason for "striving to be good," NOT because it's the right thing to do? Something that you recognize as a child created in the image of an almighty God, with that of God within you to recognize the good and eschew the harmful...?"
Wow. It's funny when you posture as "Christian". The question is stupid in light of what came before it from me. But it's no more than more crap in lieu of facing your obligation to meet the challenge of the post.
September 12, 2026 at 3:14 PM
"I objectively have not missed the importance of the text nor have I dismissed it, in context of the Pharisees and the rich."
You're right. My bad. You outright reject it, calling it a "throw away line". Calling it such in no way suggests any recognition of the importance of Jesus setting aside the RYR's question to ask His own question first and correct the misapplication of the word "good" (as well as at the same time actually identifying Himself as God).
" Jesus was bringing them down a bit, humbling them so that they might not think so highly of themselves."
How is Jesus "humbling" the RYR by explaining to him (there's nothing in the text which suggests the Pharisees were even present at this particularly moment. You're just asserting that they were because you want them there to push your marxist crap) that there's no one good but God? In what way does the text describe the RYR as "humbled" by Jesus's correction?? How far up your ass did you have to cram your arm to pull out that turd?
"That I disagree with your little human opinion on that line does not mean I "dismissed" anything more than dismissing/disagreeing with your little unproven human opinion."
I didn't offer any opinion. I offered the verse and asked what it means if not that there is no one good but God? Your BS about "context", which you don't even accurately present, doesn't have any bearing on the truth claim of Jesus itself and it is only that which is the subject of this discussion. Stop deflecting like the cowardly liar you are and man up for a change.
"Marshal raved:"
"Raved"???? Are you doing the feo thing and pretending you can judge my state of mind from Louisville? The only person getting emotional here is you, as you sputter and "sigh" because you can't figure out how to make your shit smell better! And this from the guy who dares tell us to humble ourselves! Amazing!
"Jesus is saying exactly that...to be "good" one must be as perfect as God."
"I GET that this is your insane little opinion, graceless and immoral as hell, though it may be."
How could it be? If He is saying "no one is good but God alone"....and He clearly is...then how is He being graceless and immoral as hell to say so when the implication is that we must be as perfect as good in order to be called "good"? Because if I'm being graceless and immoral as hell to simply acknowledge that clear implication, then He must be as well for making the statement!
"But I'm not obliged to agree with your little human opinions."
You keep defaulting to this insipid drivel as if it's been forgotten. But again, you're disagreeing here with the words of my Lord and Savior, Whom you pretend to follow...not with me who simply doesn't reject His statement because it makes all sad and weepy.
"Do you understand that and accept the reality that I must strive to follow God - the great God of love and grace and welcome - as best I understand God, and if I need to disagree with your human opinions, I'm obliged to do just that?"
I understand your claims to care about what God says fails when I recall everything you've said about what He does or doesn't say, about how He chooses to deal with sin and host of other clearly rebellious expressions by you against His Word and Will. So cut the crap and get busy. You can't defend your heinous character here by acting like yourself. You have no credibility here. You only have the obligation to perform here as you constantly demand other perform at your Blog of Lies and Perversions.
September 12, 2026 at 3:31 PM
Do you know that, by and large, ancient Hebrews, including first century Jews, including the rabbis and scholars, did NOT hold to a great deal of what their Scripture at the time was teaching. Jesus corrected their understanding many times. First century Christians were taught by Paul, John, James, Peter who spoke of much we discuss about the faith, including our sin nature.
Later church fathers, like Augustine, taught it as well, repeating what was known.
September 12, 2026 at 3:35 PM
I had said,
"The reality that we are each born with a sin nature is THE TOPIC of this discussion and the problem you have is that you're incapable of providing any Scriptural evidence which refutes this Biblical truth."
"It's literally NOT a "biblical truth." it is literally a human opinion that SOME humans hold based on some verses they read that, TO THEM, suggests this theory of a "sin nature." It's NOT objectively proven, at all."
THAT further explains the topic of this post. The several verses I provided which clearly and directly attest to the Biblical truth that we're each born with a sin nature are indeed examples of objective proof. If you disagree, you're tasked with providing the real meaning of the verses along with Scriptural evidence of your own to back it up. THAT is the objective reality with which you're required to deal here...not your namby-pamby tap dancing away from it.
If what YOU say is reality, you must prove it. It isn't "reality" simply because you say it is, as if saying it is Checkmate. That's using the premise to prove your premise and your premise is crap.
Then you claim I missed some made up point of yours (believing you were responding to Craig despite my name at the top of the comment, Mr. Read For Comprehension:
"Jesus confirmed there is no one good but God."
"Jesus STATED that AND Jesus affirmed the existence/reality of good people."
Yet you can't seem to produce a verse where He actually calls someone "good".
"You can't just take one passage ripped from context and act like it's a proven. It's not, objectively not."
It's not ripped from any context which has any bearing on the truth claim of Jesus...context you don't even accurately present. And given that Jesus said it, it's therefore objectively true.
"Do you recognize that you have not/can not prove objectively these little human theories you all hold?"
You pretend you don't recognize that they are and that you're required to prove they're not confirming the concept of man's sin nature by explaining what they mean if they do not refer to that concept. Just stop lying and admit you're wrong about man's sin nature, and I'll concede that you're lying is compelled by yours.
September 12, 2026 at 4:00 PM
"So, does that mean Craig IS a good person (by your estimation) OR that he's non-existent? I'm confused."
Really??? You're now going to pretend you're confused about something which has been thoroughly explained long before you again dared to crap on this Biblical teaching which provoked this post? Pay attention, little girl, and I'll explain it again.
Only God is good. We know this because Jesus clearly said so, as is recorded in three of the four Gospels. That's step one.
Step two is that despite this reality (again, it's reality because Jesus said it was as was recorded in three of the four Gospels), we as humans use the word to distinguish between the character of people as best we can determine such by our interactions and observances of them. You're evil because you defend and enable abomination and infanticide. Craig's a good guy because he's spent time helping out Haitians after a hurricane. Craig's a good person based on common human standards, even Christian standards. You're shit by the same standards, but neither of you are truly good at all regardless of your striving to be so, because of your sin nature. God hasn't sin in Him at all. We each born sinners. But sinners can do good things...they can even want to do good things for reasons other than pleasing God, which really is the only reason that matters, for without Him, there is no good.
This is reality whether it offends your MLTU sensitivities or not.
Marshal:
But that (humans who are kind, empathetic, caring, etc) doesn't make them "good". That makes them simply sinful people with empathy and kindness and compassion and integrity...no matter how hard it seems for you to wrap your mind around.
"1. PROVE IT."
I did already, with the only verse I needed for the purpose, the verse you've yet to prove means something other than "there's no one good but God alone".
"2. It's only hard to wrap my mind around because your claim is entirely devoid of rational support and contrary to, you know, reality and shit."
Except for my Lord and Savior stating it unequivocally. I know you regard God as irrational and contrary to what you want reality to be and shit, but you could change my position if you were to provide the "true meaning" of the claim "there is no one good but God alone" along with supportive evidence to back it up. I'll wait here while you keep fucking around instead.
"Leave it to the human haters to declare, with no support, that decent humans who are kind, compassionate, caring, giving, helpful, loving... that THESE are not good people, by the Pharisees graceless measure."
The Pharisees altered the Law of God, just like you do. I just read. Jesus responded to the Trabues of His time by saying first, "it is written", which means He read, too. (Actually, He wrote what is written, so...)
I could not hate my fellow man more than were I to withhold the Truth from them...like you do. If i pointed out the mustard on your shirt, would I be hateful by enlightening you to that imperfection? Your kind are truly those for whom the Truth hurts. boo-hoo.
"Thankfully, God is not like the graceless, legalistic Pharisees - those back in Jesus' day nor the modern ones."
You mean the Trabues. There's nothing at all graceless about God's Truth, Danny-girl. Grow up.
September 13, 2026 at 9:34 AM
"So, in summary:
1. You all (or at least you, Marshal) believe in your heads that this theory that "there are no good humans. Period" makes rational and biblical sense."
It's not a matter of whether or not it makes sense, though:
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." ---1 Cor 2:14 (NIV)
" Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” ---John 8:43-47 (NIV)
"2. You think this theory isn't crazy NOT because you don't recognize there are what you gracelessly allow that there are people who APPEAR good "to other humans" because they aren't as overtly evil as rapists or your president but because there are lines in the Bible that make you think, personally, that phrases like "there is no one who is good but God" should be taken literally."
The text gives no reason to believe Mark 10:18 shouldn't be taken literally. Indeed, as I stated, Jesus thought it important enough to set aside the RYR's question until He made this point clear. That's what "context" looks like. And no, those most will regard as good despite the fact they don't enable homosexuals and abortionists are still not "good" definitionally, if we revere Jesus enough to take His word for it. I do. I don't reject or question anything He says. Like normal people and actual Christians, if something from Scripture seems strange, I assume the problem is with me, not with Scripture. If God (Father or Son) says something or does something I find confusing, I assume the problem is in me. Who am I to question my Lord? I'm certainly not a Trabue who dares to condescend to Him but can't provide any reason to suspect He doesn't mean what He says.
"3. You think this NOT because of how the word Good (in English, Greek or otherwise) means one must be perfect like a GOD to be good, but because you think in your heads that there is a super secret definition of "good" that outweighs the standard definition. You think this EVEN WHILE you can't provide a rational source for that definition beyond your personal little theory that you think in your head that it makes sense to take "there is no one good but God" as a literal declaration that all humans are "not good.""
My Rational Source is Jesus. If He says there is no one good but God, anyone who refers to another person as "good" is the one being hyperbolic, not Jesus. How can one be hyperbolic about God? There's no way to overstate the goodness of One Who is the definition of "good". Human usage of the word is irrelevant.
"4. Given the reality that ancient writers/speakers and teachers (like Jesus) regularly engage in hyperbole and figurative speech, you don't think it applies here because.. well, just because that's what you think. You 100% absolutely can not objectively prove your little irrational, immoral human theory."
I don't need to. I'm not the one questioning my Lord's statement. It is YOU who is obliged to provide evidence to support whatever alternative meaning to Mark 10:18 you think you can invent. You can't even SUBjectively support a claim that He meant something else, and you can't even conjure an alternative meaning for the statement. But that is your task. That is the reason for this post which you've spent tons of keystrokes avoiding because there's no way to truly rebut the fact that we're each born with a sin nature and/or that there's no one good but God.
"So, you're welcome to believe you have "proof" even though you can't objectively prove it, it doesn't matter how irrational or squirrely you present when making such nonsense claims, but you just can't expect anyone else to take you seriously or even consider that you have sanity in place."
Mark 10:18 is my proof (along with the Matthew and Luke presentations of the story). That is, the words of my Lord, Jesus the Christ, is my objective proof which you're totally incapable of refuting in any way more compelling than you ongoing "Nyuh uh" default. I don't much care that you think me insane for believing the words of my Lord. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest. It does validate my belief that you're no Christian, but only one who exploits the word and postures for personal gain. Most non-Christians and atheists (you're both) regard actual Christ-followers in this unjustly condescending way. You're all alike. Quick to mock and ridicule, but really slow to back up your rejection of God.
"One final example, then."
Ah yes...your most heinous, vile and egregious attempt to posture follows:
"I have all manner of folks with disabilities in my life, including many friends with Down Syndrome."
I'm cutting it off here, because the rest is just pap and fluff and more exploitative than compelling. Shamefully so. I've mentioned my own relationships with such unfortunates throughout my life. I also know they can be very stubborn and self-centered. But that doesn't matter. The question here is, so what? Will God hold them accountable, or will He focus on holding accountable those who don't raise them in the faith? If the parents of such a person is a Christ-follower, I believe it will be credited to those mentally challenged (though not necessarily those mentally challenged in the manner you clearly are). There's evidence for this in one of Paul's Epistles where he speaks of Christians married to non=Christians. For the individual in question, can such a person understand what it means to give themselves to Christ? Don't know. That's up to God.
What's important to remember is that they are creatures of this existence, too, and as such, they too are born with sin natures. That can't be helped by any of us. Why would it be different for them? Paul attests that God has made Himself plain to us so that we have no excuse. Is it plain to such as these? Depends on the individual and the severity of their condition, but it just doesn't matter as regards their sin nature. They have one, too. Again, why wouldn't they. Thus, they are not "good" either. It's YOUR sin natures which makes this so hard for you to accept. Work on that, as you work on all your other egregious failings.
So once again, this was a cheap and vile attempt to pretend I'm wrong by exploiting these unfortunate people. Your sin nature never fails to rule you. Clearly...blatantly obviously...you're this deranged and evil enough to try a cheap ploy like this and "guilt me" into rejecting the truth of Scripture...indeed, the Truth Jesus confirmed...simply because you think YOU are "good" for calling other people "good". This is proof of how very depraved and sick-in-your-soul YOU are.
Grow up and be a man, girl. Your blackened heart and corrupt mind forces you to regard the Truth of God as "human traditions" when they run afoul of your personal preferences.
Now, get busy and present your TRUE MEANINGS of each of the verses I presented which stand as objective proof of the Biblical teachings regarding our sin nature.
But he’s right. The fact that you used guilt and manipulation to try to force us to deal with your idiocy does not require anyone to address your idiocy. The arrogance in thinking that your demands must be followed simply because you make them, nuts.
But as long as you declare victory..
This is just accusing you of doing exactly what he does. Except you offer more specific support and stick with the plain meaning of the text.
If only there were accounts of people who were not believers or even hostile to Christianity reading Scripture and recording their reaction to it. Perhaps there are even some who became convinced of the Truth of Scripture through simply reading it.
I do enjoy it when Dan presumes speak for me, and manages to get it horribly wrong.
I’ve been clear for ever, “YHWH good” and “human good” are two separate categories. Jesus was clearly using Agathos to describe YHWH, and we know the meaning Jesus was referring to based on what we know about the word used.
You seem to be obsessed with using the English word “good” to draw some level of equivalence between “YHWH good” and “human good”. It’s like you're trying obfuscate by imputing a level of “good” to humans which isn’t there in Scripture. You clearly hang your hat on your personal, limited, subjective, biased, imperfect, observation, and nothing else.
You don’t prove your claim by referring back to yourself. Well, you do, but that’s not how it usually works.
C
Good point. The issue is not whether those with diminished capacity are intrinsically “good” at all. The issue is whether YHWH will judge them according to their ability to understand and respond to Him. I tend to think that Scripture tells us that YHWH isn’t going to judge someone with diminished capacity the same way He’ll judge Dan.
I suspect that YHWH will deal more harshly with those who abort unique, individual, human beings because a test says they might be born with some level of Down’s, than those actually born that way.
C
Sorry, for my inconsistency in IDing myself.
September 13, 2026 at 5:39 PM
"What you MEANT to say (if you cared about facts, reality and good faith honesty) was that Marshal randomly whimsically chose ONE set of verses to focus on while ignoring other biblical passages AND reality AND reason that show that those verses are NOT rightly, biblically taken literally."
What Craig doesn't NEED to day, because it quite obvious, is that I have selected the verses I've cited because they directly refer to man's sin nature and that we are each born with one. Thus, to call my choices "random" or "whimsical" is more desperation, while at the same time rendering them easy to refute or clarify as to meaning something other than a plain reading of any of them would suggest. Strangely...almost as if there was no way to win the challenge put to you...you've thus far failed to provide such refutation or clarity with evidence of any kind which are as directly related to the point as are these several verses you so disparagingly regard.
And of course, instead of providing such refutation, you assert reality and reason as an argument for your objection to my citations and they're clearly being evidence to support the premise that man's sin nature is a Biblical teaching, again showing you using YOUR premise as proof your premise is true.
"Marshal cited a handful (or two) of verses that say something to the effect of "No one is good but God..." but usually with even less emphasis (like the man, David, saying that HE was a liar and a sinner in the womb/at birth - speaking of himself, not all of humanity). A FEW verses that say something like that."
I cited a specific verse which confirms no one is good but God alone, to join the other selected verses because it also points to the Biblical truth that all are born with sin natures. None of my citations say "something like" that. They each specific say exactly that. I continue to await your evidence to the contrary which evidently doesn't exist, or we'd have seen it by now.
"I, on the other hand, point out the reality that there are also biblical verses that say we humans are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, created to do good works, created with an understanding of right and wrong and moral notions."
None of which negates the truth of the verses I've cited regarding the fact we are each born with a sin nature.
"Jesus and others literally cite "Good people..." and I can go on and on repeating the multiple biblical verses that point to actually good, upright, moral, decent people."
You can go on and on, but to do so without bringing the receipts is worthless and would result in my deletion at your Blog of Lies and Perversions if I was going to satisfy myself with such a weak and unsupported claim. Yet I continue to await your example which presents Jesus calling any specific person "good".
"IN ADDITION to these biblical texts,"
To which you merely alluded as if they actually exist instead of actually presenting them here.
"... I point to the reality of actually good people that we all know in this world. Or at least I and my friends know good people."
You point to people YOU regard as good based on your own personal criteria for what qualifies them to be so regarded. And even if some of your criteria overlaps with that of myself or the population in general, it doesn't negate the fact that we are each born with a sin nature. Indeed, it cannot begin to do so as the fact of our sin nature doesn't prevent us from doing good deeds.
"Maybe you all are living lives of such insulated isolation that you truly don't know ANY good people."
Blah, blah, blah. I don't live in isolation. It's not a matter of how many people I know are of such character I would regard them as "good". My regard doesn't make them so. Their deeds do not make them so, except to me and other who feel as I do about the person in question. Their deeds do not negate Jesus's confirmation that there is no one good but God alone. The uniquely stupid aspect of your objection is the implication that Jesus was unaware of people who sought to do good and to keep the commandments and to please God when He confirmed that there is no one good but God alone. You have such a low opinion of my Lord and Savior!
"Perhaps it's the case that you all are genuinely BAD people, yourselves, along with your wives, your children, your family and friends. I doubt that seriously, but maybe that's YOUR PERSONAL view of your loved ones (so sorry for them, if that's the case!)"
Well, we're sinners with a sin nature, that's for sure. There's no one who isn't according to Scripture, as my citations attest. But I'm unaware of any who defend infanticide like you do, and that includes my daughter who knew her own daughter had Down Syndrome early enough to abort, but chose not to do so.
"I'd ask you once again that reality-based question that you all continue to dodge: Do you NOT KNOW ANY good people?"
Good by my criteria for judging the character of others, yes. Good by the true definition according to Jesus? No, because there is no one good but God alone.
This is the last time you get to ask such a question, and I don't see how you need any further clarification regarding the challenge you continue to dodge because you've already admitted you're unable to complete it by your cowardly avoidance. Get busy or admit you're wrong about the concept of our sin nature being absolutely Biblical in its truth.
"And here, I'm talking NOT about "perfect people," (we have a word for that: PERFECT PEOPLE). I'm talking about genuinely good, caring, kind, compassionate, empathetic people - you know, the traits of Good People as the actual word is defined, both in Greek and in English. Do you actually not know ANYONE that you're willing to say, "Man, that's a genuinely good person!"?"
Asked and answered. What hasn't been answered is the challenge to you to provide the TRUE MEANING of the verses I've cited, since you insist they do not say what a plain reading of them reveals to us.
"How pathetic that you can't recognize the good and decent people of the world, but maybe that's why you're so biblically and rationally blinded on this point - because you all are so depraved that you can't imagine actually decent people. Is that the case?"
How pathetic that you choose to pretend this hasn't been comprehensively and exhaustively addressed even long before this post was put in place to prove how wrong you are regarding the principle of man's sin nature being a Biblical teaching!
"Another question to go ignored."
This is funny not simply because it impossible to state without lying...as it's impossible to pretend it's been ignored at all...but because it also dishonestly pretends you've not ignored the most important question put to you, which is to provide the "TRUE MEANING" of each of the verses cited in the post, since you want to insist they don't mean what a plain reading of them reveals about the Biblical teaching that each of us are born with a sin nature.
"Regardless, as my words make clear: I HAVE cited biblical cases of good people, of Jesus referring to good people as an actual reality. AND without the jackass-ish hedging of "well... SORT of good, people... you know, actually evil brutes, but compared to some other evil brutes, rapists and child abusers, they're better than that...""
Your words are lies. You've not provided what you claim to have provided and you've certainly not provided what you're obliged to provide in order to maintain you position that Scripture doesn't teach that we are each born with a sin nature. You've lied that Jesus has identified any specific individual as "good" because you've cited no verse or passage which records that. You're again defaulting to insisting you said YXZ when you never have, that XYZ is true because you say it is and pretending your criteria for labeling another as "good" is sufficient to prove Jesus was stupid or lying and thus wrong about saying there is no one good but God.
"What an insult to the people of God! and, by extension, God's own Self!"
No doubt you need to believe this. Your sin nature rules you to presume such a thing. Lying to God and His people is the true insult, and worse, to speak of your idol you refer to as God is your blasphemy.
"The reality is that we've both cited biblical passages that (in my case, anyway) support our theories. The problem is that y'all's theories are undone by reality AND the Bible and you're just too blinded by your human traditions to recognize it."
Again proving your premise by citing your premise. You've provided no passages which negate, mitigate or refute those I've cited and what they mean. NONE! Continually lying that you have only serves to support my case and disprove yours. But lying is what you do.
"You truly fit the model of the Pharisees."
By citing Scripture and expecting you to support your contrary perception of what it says? That's just another lie you like to tell. You've spent your inordinate share of these 160+ comments to avoid the challenge and lie about me and Scripture, yet somehow I'm like a Pharisee. That's rich. Rich in evil, which flows from you incredibly obvious sin nature.
I'm done here, as you all are so blinded that you don't even understand that your reasoning and biblical eisegesis and your little human traditions are entirely undone, and thus, the conversation is not truly a conversation, as you all apparently simply can't understand reality, in some cases, and plain words, in other cases. But I do want to address one thing.
Again, I'm making the case that there ARE good humans. NOT perfect humans, as we have a word for that (ie, Perfect Humans). NOT godlike humans (we have a word for that, GOD) and NOT "humans who aren't as evil as rapists and molesters..." Just GOOD HUMANS, as good is understood.
Further, I'm NOT arguing that they are good because of their deeds. I'm arguing that they are good humans with the traits that English speakers (and Greek speakers before us) as what makes a good human - that they are caring, empathetic, understanding, forgiving, giving, welcoming, etc... that these are TRAITS of their personality.
AND NOT (once again, because you're being obtuse) that they have these traits PERFECTLY, just that a reasonable person can look at their lives and character and OBSERVE, "Oh, these are kind, compassionate, loving people, down to their souls..." which is NOT saying they are perfect or equal to God in their Good nature. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.
From there, I tried to think of some people that most of us know in our own personal lives (so that you wouldn't have to accept my assessment) that would be impossible to NOT say, "Yes, that IS a good person, loving, caring, compassionate, etc."
Further, I'm NOT saying this is universally applicable to all folks with Down Syndrome (who are NOT "diminished" or any of the other abusive, oppressive ablist slurs you ignorant bigots used) but it is commonly found to be the case in many folks with Down Syndrome.
Because of their sainted nature (NOT because they are "poor disabled little angels or any obnoxious shit like that! Just because they are often quite genuinely good...), I thought that you all would NOT be able to state with a straight face that your personal friends or acquaintances with Down Syndrome are NOT GOOD PEOPLE. Period.
And you haven't, you've cowered away from even TRYING to answer (righteously, because, how EVIL would you have to be to call such good people "not good") and chosen not to answer so that you can still cling to your nonsense human theory that there ARE NO GOOD PEOPLE. This is precisely as I expected and precisely one reason why your bad reasoning and eisegesis and human theories have been exposed as the latrine refuse that they are.
September 13, 2026 at 5:57 PM
"IT IS YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION."
It's my personal citation of the words of Jesus the Christ as recorded in Mark 10:18. No interpretation necessary except to alter the meaning of the words which are unambiguous and straightforward. They mean what they say until YOU can provide "THE TRUE MEANING" which is somehow hidden within those incredibly straightforward and unambiguous words of Mark 10:18. Any chance you'll provide that "true meaning" before I die?
"YOU are the one who is insisting that this verse should be taken as a literal representation of God's thinking, in spite of Jesus repeatedly citing good people."
JESUS is the one insisting there is no one good but God alone. I'm merely accepting His words as delivered, given there's no reason anywhere in the full context to suppose I shouldn't. Jesus not only didn't "repeatedly" contradict this clearly stated, unambiguous fact, He never did it even once. Your attempts to suggest otherwise failed in the manner I explained at the time. You can't make them mean what they don't anymore than you can make Mark 10:18 mean what it doesn't. What it does mean is that there is no one good but God alone.
"Did you know that there are a total of FIVE verses in all the Bible that come close to saying something like, "No humans are good..."?"
Did you know that we Christians don't need God/Jesus to repeat Himself in order to accept what He says? Those like you who pose as Christians need some unknown and unspoken number of repetitions to render anything said by God/Jesus worthy of accepting and abiding.
"It's NOT (literally not) saying that there are no good humans."
The only verse which matters on the issue is the one from Jesus where He LITERALLY confirms that there is no one good but God alone.
"So, really, something like three verses that say that directly (and then, there is the question of it's hyperbole or figurative in some way, which clearly, it is)."
Jesus could say it in limerick form or using pig-latin and what matters is the message presented is what's to be taken literally. So this constant appeal to the literary form is pointless as hyperbole or figurative language wouldn't matter to the message itself. Here in Mark 10:18, there's no evidence of any kind to suppose Jesus isn't being literal except that you petulantly insist he must be because you "know 'good' people", as if that negates the truth He confirms in this verse. Once again we see that when there's a conflict between what God/Jesus says and what you prefer to believe, it's God/Jesus Who is mistaken, in error or somehow not making Himself clear enough to the likes of you.
"On the other hand, do you KNOW how many verses cite the reality of "good people"? Dozens."
You couldn't provide any which contradict the fact that Jesus confirms in Mark 10:18, and more so, you can't possibly provide any which addresses the challenge this post presented to you, which you avoid like the lying coward you are.
"Jesus his own self mentions the reality of good people several times - more than I cited already."
But you didn't cite a one. You cited whatever verse you thought would be a deal breaker, though none of them present Jesus actually calling anyone "good". Feel free to go through the last 170 comments and produce the date and time when you did. I love to laugh.
"But I won't be repeating what I've already laid out."
Good. Because what you "laid out" did not contradict Mark 10:18 and what you "laid out" certainly didn't contradict the Biblical fact that we are each born with a sin nature...the only issue which you're to address.
"Then there are people like
Moses,
Noah,
Enoch (?),
Lot,
Job,
Abel,
Zechariah and Elizabeth (John the Baptist's parents),
Joseph of Arimathea,
Cornelius,
Barnabas,
and others"
And, which of these were born without a sin nature like Jesus was? I'll wait here while you don't address this question because you can't.
"who demonstrated themselves to be good people."
Well, they may have demonstrated they were "righteous" in the eyes of God, or perhaps referred to as "a good person" by another human being. But that doesn't mean they are "good" because only God alone is.
"Y'all's problem is that you irrationally and entirely gracelessly want to insist that "good=perfect," but that's full-of-shit-blasphemy and just plain stupid reading comprehension/bad English and poor reasoning. It's irrational and nonsensical and just plain dumb. It's an abuse of the language and of the Bible. It demonstrates sub-grade school understanding and capacity for reading comprehension."
Sez you. "Y'alls" problem is you are too much the example of one with a sin nature such that you devolve into character assassination and direct attacks on my Lord and Savior because His straightforward and unambiguous confirmation that there is no one good but God alone is offensive to the likes of you. Is He stupid? Is He a liar? You think you know better than Him? That's hilarious and pathetically sad, as well, as you will nonetheless continue posturing as a follower of Him while rejecting all He says which you find personally offensive. Good luck with that.
"I encourage you men to become better, more grace-full, less irrational and cruel humans. Be better. You CAN do it. Both reason and the Bible make that clear."
Says the chimp who gracelessly attacks in a most cruelly irrational way when faced with truths and facts he dislikes but can't contradict. I don't think you can be better. It seems most probably that God has given you over to your sin nature. Again...good luck with that.
A larger, whiter flag of surrender you could not hoist!
I'll deal with this just because... well, just for my own sake:
which of these (Barnabas, Noah, Lot and a whole list of HUMAN BEINGS who were described as GOOD HUMANS) were born without a sin nature like Jesus was? I'll wait here while you don't address this question because you can't.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "sin nature..." THAT IS A LITTLE SMALL-MINDED HUMAN OPINION OF YOURS THAT YOU HAVE NOT AND CAN NOT PROVE OBJECTIVELY.
I don't have to "prove" an idea according to an unproven theory. If you claim that you and your family have a space monkey zoo you maintain on the dark side of the moon, I DO NOT HAVE to prove it doesn't exist. ALL I have to do is note: There is no proof of your space monkeys or your mythical "sin nature" or any of a dozen others of your silly little unproven and often irrational and sometimes godlessly immoral little human theories.
But, setting that aside, I'm not saying (and read closely so you understand the words I'm typing) that THESE PEOPLE ARE PERFECT in the sense that we may believe Jesus to be perfect and sinless. You can tell that's not what I'm saying by the way I've been quite abundantly clear. I'm saying that these people are described as GOOD, as good is typically understood and YOU are making an unbiblical and godless and graceless claim born of legalism if you want to insist that they weren't REALLY good, because they weren't perfect the way God is perfect.
PERFECT and GOOD are two different words. HOW do you not understand plain English and basic common sense?
But I've said all of that before. You've gouged your brains and eyes and reading comprehension out of your head and can't see what's right in front of you, observable for all who have eyes to see.
Also, you keep saying the stupidly false claim that I haven't pointed to any biblical references to Good people, EVEN AS you give the list I cited. AND the example of Jesus referring to good people. You act as if I haven't given it but, once again, Jesus said, for one example, "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good..." Jesus is LITERALLY referring to the existence of actually good people right there. He doesn't have to cite a specific person to be speaking of actually good people.
Now, you can make ALL SORTS of little guesses as to why you THINK in your head, personally, why this passage isn't literally referring to literally good people, but it literally does.
"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good..."
God have mercy.
September 13, 2026 at 6:05 PM
"I've had children and worked with many others."
By God's Grace they'll get over it.
"There were very few, if any, that I would call "bad" children."
You're a poor judge.
"They were merely imperfect humans, not yet having reached mature reasoning capacity or self-control."
Ironic, given you're so very imperfect (to say the least) and at your age you've not reached mature reasoning capacity or self-control. Note your childish attacks in your comments above. Note your inability to focus on the point of the post.
"Although almost to a one, they all had better reasoning capacity and self-control than you all."
You're a poor judge.
"Do children and adults sometimes "do wrong" or "miss the mark..."? YES, that humans are imperfect is a given and observable reality."
That's because they're not good and all possess sin natures. They're imperfection and tendency to "do wrong" and sin is evidence of it..
"What we CAN'T see objectively are:
A "sin nature"'"
It's self-evident in their imperfections and tendency to sin. Moreover, we don't need to see it "objectively", as Scripture has informed us (in a variety of ways) of the REALITY that we are each born with a sin nature. It also tells us of Adam and Jesus referenced the Creation story in which Adam was a part in Mark 10:6-7 (and Matthew 19:4-5). Paul affirmed Adam existed (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-49, 1 Timothy 2:13-14) as well as did Luke (Luke 3:38) and Jude (Jude 1:14). Even your beloved science can't decided what to believe about him!
"Many other mythical tropes;
That humans are so corrupted by sin that they somehow "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity in your mythical "hell.";"
Another "trope" which Jesus Himself perpetrated. But Dan knows better than Jesus. Dan knows better than God. Dan's so smart, but can't produce countervailing evidence for the few verses I've cited which proves his claim our sin nature isn't Biblical.
"That there are "no good humans""
Indeed, as my Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ, confirmed in Mark 10:18.
"Look, you boys are free to believe in all the irrational myths and conspiracies that you want."
We don't. We believe in the clearly revealed Will and Word of God which you find so troubling but can't refute.
"But you can't expect rational, morally reasoning people to go along with such graceless irrational nonsense."
I don't need to expect anything out of truly rational, morally reasoning people. Such don't regard Scripture as "irrational nonsense" as you do.
"Just admit you can't prove your theories objectively and stick with, "But I really think it's true, even if I can't prove it...""
I leave the lying to you, Dan, since that's your forte. In the meantime, I deal in Biblical truth you dismiss as "theory" when it offends your marxist, liberation theology universalist feelings.
"THAT would be one step in grace and humility and demonstrating that you all ARE capable of moral reasoning."
A step you could take...and should if you want to pretend you understand grace, humility and "moral" reasoning... would be to provide what you think is the "TRUE MEANING" of the verses I've cited in the post, verses which stand as evidence that we are each born with a sin nature
"But these attempts to try to impotently bully others into accepting your stupid little graceless, godless, irrational, immoral hunches as facts are just an embarrassment to you all."
Says the bully who accuses me of promoting "stupid little graceless, godless, irrational, immoral hunches as facts" for no other reason than you can't do jack to refute the Biblical truths I defend. Defend the Word and Will of God is not "bullying". Accusing me of bullying is just another dishonest and clearly hypocritical tactic, indicative of true impotence on your part. Talk about "embarrassing"!
September 13, 2026 at 6:24 PM
"It's STILL question begging. The question being, "When Jesus said that there was no one good but God to the RYR, was he being hyperbolic or was he actually redefining the notion of "good..."?""
It's a question the neither the verse itself nor the passage in which it is found suggests hyperbole. As I keep saying...because it's true on the face of it...it's a statement Jesus puts forth in a most straightforward manner in response to a specific greeting by the RYR. Again, He sets aside the RYR's question to address this reference to Christ as "good", specifically to confirm that there is no one good but God alone, which means the greeting is misapplied or that Jesus, too, is God. That is to say, the RYR referring to Jesus as "good" only works if Jesus is also God, because according to Jesus, no one else is<./i> good but God. This isn't even difficult to grasp for people who aren't MLTUs who need people to regard them as "good", too. Nothing in the passage suggests anything but a literal understanding, for no one questions it which would lead to clarification by Jesus. Nothing in the text, nothing in the context in which this statement is made, gives any indication it was meant figuratively or that it was hyperbole. Nothing, and you've provided nothing except some drivel about "fighting oppression and rich dudes". Typical marxist bullocks!
"Marshal is claiming something like, "It's right there in the text so it MUST mean that Jesus is redefining 'good,' because it's there... AND I really think he meant it that way!!" is childish and a question begging fallacy."
NO. That's what you're projecting on me because you can't refute Jesus's statement in any honest, logical, reasonable, intelligent manner. I simply take the statement as it stands, for there's no reason in the text to suggest I shouldn't and there's nothing more compelling from you than "Nyuh uh" to show a "TRUE MEANING" the words themselves don't convey.
"The point is not DO YOU presume he meant it literally? The point is that Jesus and other biblical authors/speakers regularly engaged in hyperbole and figurative speech..."
The ACTUAL point is that if it doesn't mean what Jesus said, what does it mean and how do you support that alternative understanding? THAT is the point for this and all the other cited verses for which you've failed to provide a "TRUE MEANING" the verses themselves aren't conveying.
So since you're acting in your typical little petulant whiny bitch manner, I'll remind you that you insisted when I've offered these verses at your Blog of Lies and Perversions...or at Craig's (at this point I don't recall with certainty when it took place, though it's come up many times over the years)...you insisted the verses do not prove that the principle that we are each born with a sin nature isn't Biblical. The verses, of course belie that stupid claim. You whined and deleted, so I listed them here and asked the simple question you haven't found or invented a way to answer: If the verses don't mean what a plain reading clearly states they mean, then what do they mean and how do you support the "TRUE MEANING" you pretend exists but won't provide here and now after over 170 comments. I'll repeat that your reference to hyperbole, figurative language, metaphor and any other literary device has nothing to do with the message being conveyed. The message is the message regardless if it stated as plainly as "no one is good but God alone" or in a parable, limerick or allegorical song and dance routine. So every reference to hyperbole as the reason why one shouldn't take the message literally without presenting what the message is that the hyperbole "distorts" is a blatant cop out. Also known as another Dan Trabue lie.
"given the reality of Jesus ALSO speaking of "good people" "
Where? When? Where's the verse in which He's referring to any specific person as "good"? I'll wait here while you continue to obfuscate and equivocate and dodge.
"MORE times than this one off throw-away line that was not the point of the story"
It wasn't a "throw away line" simply because you need it to be. Don't say it again as if I haven't addressed this specific stupidity of yours multiple times already without an intelligent counter argument from you. Indeed, according to the Cambridge Dictionary (on line), a "throwaway line" is "a remark that sounds unimportant because of the way the speaker says it". What about Mark 10:18 sounds "unimportant" to the likes of you? It sounds like a specific point of importance to me, which is why Jesus set aside the RYR's question to address it. But hey, Dan Trabue is always there to tell God what's important and what isn't!
-"WHY would anyone presume he meant this literally? ESPECIALLY when we can objectively observe actually good people in the real world?"
Because He meant it literally, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. There's no reason to assume He didn't mean it literally. He's drawing a very serious and important distinction between the goodness of God and the lack of it in the rest of us. Again...what else could it mean? If you had an answer to the question posed at the start of the post, you would have presented it with your first comment over one hundred and fifty or so comments ago. You didn't. You chose instead to attack me without just cause for taking my Lord and Savior's words seriously
"Stating dumbly, "but, but, but,... it's right there, and I REALLY think he meant it literally" is NOTHING more than question begging."
More grace embracing by the fake Christian. I stated it as a matter of fact. "This is what Jesus said. What does it mean if not what He said is what it means?
You're a coward who won't admit you've nothing to refute the truth of this or any of the other verses I've cited. You're a slave to your sin nature and are acting in a most sinful manner as a result, rather than as a man of honor (because you're not one).
September 13, 2026 at 6:28 PM
"I have no confidence that Marshal will actually address my real world example of our many Down Syndrome friends, many of whom are CLEARLY good people, but I'd throw it open to Craig and Glenn, as well."
I have no confidence Dan Trabue will ever come to Christ. But I already addressed his heinously exploitative comment about his "many" Down Syndrome "friends", many of whom Dan thinks he can assert are "good" or without a sin nature (which possessed of such as we all are means they're not truly "good"). But just to reiterate because Dan's stupid and false and needs to hear the truth again:
"Do you all DARE to state as a (false) "fact" that, "NO, these Down Syndrome people I know are NOT good people."
I most certainly "DARE" to speak the truth of Jesus that there is no one good but God alone. I don't know why you'd think their disability changes the equation.
"They are BAD people"
Not "BAD" people, pagan...."SINNERS"...people with a sin nature, just like everyone else, but not so severely as you.
" deserving of eternal torture if they don't accept my personal irrational/graceless theory of "blood atonement" to satisfy and "angry god" so he doesn't kill them forever.""
It's not my personal theory. It's Christianity. Part of the Good News which Jesus came to proclaim to the poor in spirit. But you make sure you make out God to be a moral monster, just like all you atheists like to do because you refuse to accept Him as He Is on His terms.
As to how He chooses to deal with the mentally disabled I leave to His good mercy and justice.
"Assuming you know some actually quite good people with Down Syndrome, are you evil and graceless and pathetic and soul-sick enough to call them "bad people..."?"
Again, they're sinners just like everyone else. YOU are "bad people", through and through, and there IS a hell waiting just for your sick, evil soul.
September 13, 2026 at 6:49 PM
"I've proven that your opinions are not the only options."
You've proven absolutely nothing save your vile character and willingness to lie and disparage when you're left unable to make your shit smell like roses. You've done a lot of asserting, along with presenting variations of your routine "Nyuh uh" responses, but you've proven nothing, presented no facts and haven't addressed the citations as you're required to do in order to show how they don't prove the existence of the Biblical teaching that we are each born with a sin nature. THAT, you've avoided and just run your mouth about "good people" in a manner which ignores the distinction you can't or won't grasp because of your MLTU bent. Boo-hoo.
"I've presented a rational AND biblical AND moral case for my opinion..."
No, you haven't, Dan. Not even close. Your opinion of other people is worthless as "a case for" your ludicrous, unBiblical opinion. There's nothing "rational" about that which has no connection to the challenge presented to you by the post. You're the freakin' Black Knight hobbling about on two bloody stumps pretending you've "won" something.
"You are just too blinded by your human traditions to recognize that."
Yes. I'm too blinded by the tradition of acceptance and belief in Christian truth revealed to us in Scripture. And what's more, I don't apologize for it.
"That's YOUR failure..."
Trusting in the truth of Christianity as revealed to us in Scripture is not a failure and you're laughably incapable of demonstrating that I've lost anything in any way.
" and why you've lost this discussion, even though you may not understand just how BADLY you've failed and how very graceless, immoral, unbiblical, irrational and bad/stupid/inept your theories are and you've demonstrated your capacity for moral reasoning."
That's a nice little fairy tale you've invented for yourself, but it's no reflection of reality. You can't even explain what's graceless about my adherence to the truths I've presented here. You want and need to believe that the truth of God is but "theory" when the reality is that you simply reject Him outright.
"I'm just now waiting to see deep your immoral depravation goes and to see if you answer these last questions I've asked. If nothing else, you're proving how graceless and "bad" and irrational SOME humans are."
That's funny. You accusing me of being graceless and irrational. I'm not obliged to respond to any questions of yours (though I have intelligently, honestly, gracefully and in accordance with Christian teaching), but you're obliged to respond to the challenge of this post, composed specifically for your benefit, little cowardly girl. You don't get to spew crap and then say you've met your obligations. You don't get to whine and drone on about irrelevant nonsense and pretend you've proven whatever you think it is you've proven.
You're a joke. A bad joke. You're NOT a Christian, and that's for certain.
September 13, 2026 at 10:00 PM
Comedy now ensues!
"There it is. Some glimmering light of a sense of decency, a sense of shame, and a sense of understanding the hole in your wicked pathetic sin-sick argument."
Yeah, that's comedy gold right there! This indecent and vile lover of perversion and death sees " a glimmering light of a sense of decency" in one who defends the Words and Will of God. How gracious!
"You clearly recognize at some level how evil it would be for you to choose to call such fellow humans "not good" or "bad," even."
I don't need to refer to them as "bad", but it's true they are sinners, too, because we're each of us born with a sin nature. There's absolutely nothing "evil" about acknowledging that Biblical truth, nor in supposing it goes for the mentally disabled, too, and most especially it goes for you, who loves yourself some homosexuality and baby murdering.
" You recognize that this points to a hole in your argument because, of course, these are good people, just like other people are good people."
No hole in my argument, which is no more than stating clear and unambiguous Christian truth.
"Your shame in refusing to even address it shows that you recognize it at some level."
Of course by now you've seen that I did address it and I did so with the same degree of truth and honesty influenced by the truth of Christian teaching as I have this entire topic you haven't shown the spine to address.
"You're done. You lost."
Says the Black Knight as he bounces around on the bloody stumps where his legs used to be wishing he still had arms to wave about in defiance! What a pathetic lying joke you are!
" You're exposed as a coward and an irrational supporter of cruel and inhumane and insane human theories and conspiracies."
So you need to tell yourself as you slink off without having lifted a finger to satisfy your obligation as a man to respond to the proof you demanded to show how the fact that we're each born with a sin nature is a Biblical teaching.
"On every point you've lost this argument. Even if you don't understand it. Which, too, is to your shame."
More comedy. Insist without proving it that I've lost this debate, and pretend you're absolved from proving by pretending I don't understand. Tell me the truth: You were like your middle school debate team captain, weren't you?
I'll pray for you Dan, but I fear it's way too late for you. I fear God's give you over to your corruption and you'll remain the reprobate you insist on being.
September 15, 2026 at 6:05 PM<
"I'm done here"
You were done here when you first submitted a comment with no plans to address the questions in the post as asked.
"as you all are so blinded that you don't even understand that your reasoning and biblical eisegesis and your little human traditions are entirely undone"
Actually, my defense of Christian truth remains firm and as solid as when I began. You've done nothing to break that defense in any way. It's a brick wall against which you've been farting bubbles hoping they'll make the truth crumble. It's comical you now surrender and prepare to run away pretending you're the victor.
...and thus, the conversation is not truly a conversation"
That's the only true thing you've said as you've chosen not to engage on the point of the discussion. It hasn't been a conversation at all. It's been your deflecting, equivocating, obfuscating, insulting and attacking, mocking my Lord and Savior as a liar or stupid and anything else in your abdication of your obligation to respond to the challenge put to you to provide the "TRUE MEANING" of the cited verses, since you don't want to accept them as presented in Scripture.
..."as you all apparently simply can't understand reality, in some cases, and plain words, in other cases."
Not that you've been able to prove. But then, you don't truly understand what the word "reality" means. "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
"But I do want to address one thing."
Oh, I'm sure this will be pointless!
"Again, I'm making the case that there ARE good humans."
Just saying it isn't "making the case", particularly when you're contradicting the words of my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. You need "HARD DATA" if you hope to prevail against Jesus.
"NOT perfect humans, as we have a word for that (ie, Perfect Humans)."
That's TWO words, and it means "good" according to Jesus.
"NOT godlike humans (we have a word for that, GOD)"
Scripture has a more accurate word: sinners.
" and NOT "humans who aren't as evil as rapists and molesters..." "
...or homosexuals or baby murderers AKA Jeff St fake Christians.
"Just GOOD HUMANS, as good is understood."
More accurately, sinners with sin natures who do good things enough that other sinners refer to them as "good people".
"Further, I'm NOT arguing that they are good because of their deeds."
Yes you are because there's no other way for you to determine, even by your corrupt standards of what constitutes "a good person" but by their deeds.
"I'm arguing that they are good humans with the traits that English speakers (and Greek speakers before us) as what makes a good human - that they are caring, empathetic, understanding, forgiving, giving, welcoming, etc... that these are TRAITS of their personality."
Traits which cannot in any way be realized without them doing good deeds which suggest them. (The really funny part is how you think I've lost this debate!)
"AND NOT (once again, because you're being obtuse) that they have these traits PERFECTLY, just that a reasonable person can look at their lives and character and OBSERVE, "Oh, these are kind, compassionate, loving people, down to their souls..." which is NOT saying they are perfect or equal to God in their Good nature. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand."
There's no misunderstanding of any kind on my part. Those are sinners...people with sin natures...who do good things (at least "good" to YOUR personal satisfaction) to which you apply the adjective "good". But they're sinners...people with sin natures...regardless. That makes you cry, but you'll have to man up and accept the truth.
"From there, I tried to think of some people that most of us know in our own personal lives (so that you wouldn't have to accept my assessment) that would be impossible to NOT say, "Yes, that IS a good person, loving, caring, compassionate, etc.""
A futile exercise given whomever you chose to use as an example would be a sinner with a sin nature. There's no one ever born who wasn't and isn't except for my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ.
"Further, I'm NOT saying this is universally applicable to all folks with Down Syndrome (who are NOT "diminished" or any of the other abusive, oppressive ablist slurs you ignorant bigots used) but it is commonly found to be the case in many folks with Down Syndrome."
"Ablist"??? There's not a stupid lefty weasel word you're not embarrassed to use, is there? Down Syndrome people are, by scientific definition, "diminished". To say so is no more an "oppressive" slur or a sign of bigotry that to refer to them as "Special Needs" which all organizations who truly care about them do.
"Because of their sainted nature (NOT because they are "poor disabled little angels or any obnoxious shit like that! Just because they are often quite genuinely good...), I thought that you all would NOT be able to state with a straight face that your personal friends or acquaintances with Down Syndrome are NOT GOOD PEOPLE. Period."
What's truly obnoxious is a shit like you exploiting these people as you try defend your rejection of Biblical truth. The vile grace embracing is such that only vermin like you would find a suitable tactic to that end. You couldn't disgust me more. You dare pretend to care about these people while you refuse to vote against any and every Dem asshole who runs on protecting a woman's "right" to murder her own child, which many do because they learn their unborn hasn't the right amount of chromosomes. Fuck you, Dan, for daring to work this angle here as if it's your Blog of Lies and Perversions.
"And you haven't, you've cowered away from even TRYING to answer (righteously, because, how EVIL would you have to be to call such good people "not good") and chosen not to answer so that you can still cling to your nonsense human theory that there ARE NO GOOD PEOPLE. This is precisely as I expected and precisely one reason why your bad reasoning and eisegesis and human theories have been exposed as the latrine refuse that they are."
Oh....did I say "fuck you"???? I mean to say, "FUCK YOU". I answered this cheap challenge in the only honest, truthful and factual way possible, which is that they are people, people are born, and all people are born with a sin nature, which makes all people sinners. How God will deal with them when the time comes is up to Him and I would wager He'd take their diminished capacity into account when considering their eternity. How He considers YOUR diminished capacity will likely not be to your advantage. For yours is a double whammy of evil, obnoxious shit as you not only exploit these unfortunates, you do so in hopes that you can find I'm dismissive of them, just as you do in exploiting dykes and fairies. You're scum Dan. Horrid scum. But note the grace I've extended to you. I've not deleted a single comment of yours, as is my routine here. I've let you lie till the cows come home, dodge and deflect and ignore you obligation and you dare pull this shit, too. Scumbag.
Now you're going to run away on your bloody stumps believing you're the morally superior victor!
September 15, 2026 at 7:01 PM
"I'll deal with this just because... well, just for my own sake:"
As we'll see, you'll not serve your sake at all. Better would be that you concern yourself with His sake!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "sin nature..." THAT IS A LITTLE SMALL-MINDED HUMAN OPINION OF YOURS THAT YOU HAVE NOT AND CAN NOT PROVE OBJECTIVELY."
Boy! You should have emboldened that comment, too! Then it would have been so much stupider in your insistence you're right and I'm wrong. Of course, as the concept of our sin nature is discussed often in Scripture, as my many citations confirm, is not just ignored by you, but falsely asserted as non-existent. In other words, you're a liar. It's not an opinion of mine, as I've proven, it's a teaching of Christianity.
"I don't have to "prove" an idea according to an unproven theory."
What you have to do...and would if you weren't such a lying pussy...is to provide the "TRUE MEANING" of each of the verses I cited in my post if they do not mean what the words of those verses state.
"If you claim that you and your family have a space monkey zoo you maintain on the dark side of the moon, I DO NOT HAVE to prove it doesn't exist. ALL I have to do is note: There is no proof of your space monkeys or your mythical "sin nature" or any of a dozen others of your silly little unproven and often irrational and sometimes godlessly immoral little human theories."
You're a liar. I've proven "sin nature" is a Biblical concept. You've done nothing to prove otherwise. "Nyuh uh"...the only counter argument you ever use because of your diminished mental capacity can conjure no intelligent, adult, respectful good faith argument...doesn't being to refute the truth (and all other truths) of Scripture I defend.
"But, setting that aside, I'm not saying (and read closely so you understand the words I'm typing) that THESE PEOPLE ARE PERFECT in the sense that we may believe Jesus to be perfect and sinless."
I don't care about the people you cite. I care that you provide the "TRUE MEANING" of Mark 10:18 and all other verses if what they say isn't what they mean. You can't do that because they mean exactly what they say but you're too much of a cowardly lying scumbag fake Christian to admit the obvious truth is true.
"You can tell that's not what I'm saying by the way I've been quite abundantly clear."
I can tell you're not saying what any of those verses "TRULY MEAN" if not what a plain reading of them reveals as the obvious meaning we can all see so clearly and easily.
"I'm saying that these people are described as GOOD, as good is typically understood and YOU are making an unbiblical and godless and graceless claim born of legalism if you want to insist that they weren't REALLY good, because they weren't perfect the way God is perfect."
I don't care what you or anyone else calls other people. That's not a concern and you've wasted a large share of the 175 or more comments acting as if that matters against the fact that my Lord and Savior confirmed that there is no one good but God alone. I don't care that you pee your Pampers while recognizing what that means (and it means your understanding of the Christian faith is fiction).
"PERFECT and GOOD are two different words. HOW do you not understand plain English and basic common sense?"
I understand how people use words and I also understand the words of my Lord and Savior, Who isn't stupid or a liar and definitely not hard to understand. There is no one good but God alone.
"But I've said all of that before. You've gouged your brains and eyes and reading comprehension out of your head and can't see what's right in front of you, observable for all who have eyes to see."
So you need to tell yourself in lieu of an actual defense of your heresy and rejection of Jesus.
"Also, you keep saying the stupidly false claim that I haven't pointed to any biblical references to Good people, EVEN AS you give the list I cited."
Your list was of a number of people you said were called "good". You could have picked the one where you could've have presented the verse where God or Jesus called the person good. Why didn't you? Because there is no such verse. That's because "good" as Jesus used it would require that said person was born sinless. Which on that list was born sinless and provide the verse which states that.
"AND the example of Jesus referring to good people."
You're really going to keep lying about Jesus referring to some specific people or person when I explained that your example absolutely doesn't do that.
"You act as if I haven't given it but, once again, Jesus said, for one example, "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good..." Jesus is LITERALLY referring to the existence of actually good people right there. He doesn't have to cite a specific person to be speaking of actually good people."
Yes He does, if you're going to use that example and pretend it makes your case. YOUR case is that because of this "example", He can't have meant there is no one good but God alone when He said there is no one good but God alone. That requires that your "example" MUST name a specific person. But as we can see by reading your example, He's describing how a good person would act to teach us how we should act.
"Now, you can make ALL SORTS of little guesses as to why you THINK in your head, personally, why this passage isn't literally referring to literally good people, but it literally does."
Again, you suppose that because YOU say it's true, that makes it true. And because you say it's true, it must be accepted as true despite no evidence to back it up. You don't accept that sort of thing from me at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, but in typical Double-Standard Dan fashion, you expect that it's OK for you. So who are these "good people" about whom Jesus is speaking?
"God have mercy."
Don't invoke God here as if you believe in Him.
So just as an aside, a man sits quietly in a room all day and night. Is he compassionate? Does he have empathy for those who suffer? How can one tell?
“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "sin nature..."“
This seems like quite the claim to make with no proof beyond you saying so. B
I’m not even sure what to do with this rambling, screed.
It seems clear that you haven’t paid attention to, understood, or been curious enough about what I’ve said to ask for clarification. Instead you’ve chosen to have an argument with yourself.
What’s most interesting about this whole thing is that I haven’t actually seen you prove anything, nor have you really dealt with what Jesus was saying when He said “no one is good, but YHWH”. As noted, the word for “good” meant one thing when applied to YHWH (as in this case), and another when applied to humans.
But it seems clear that you simply don’t care to hear anything that doesn’t agree with your hunches and unproven claims.
As always it’s amusing to watch you flail around and try to leave with “dignity” as you blame others for your failures and disparage us with more BS.
I’ll close with the fact that you’re more upset about “mean words” as applied to those with Down’s than you are about the brutal ending of lives because of a test result that indicates the possibility of Down’s.
C
What Dan is doing is simply replacing the term “Sin nature”, with “imperfect” or “bent towards Sin”. He’s describing the same reality that we all witness, but doing so in a way that renders Sin as mere imperfection.
The lack of nuance in understanding that the word translated as “good”, essentially means perfect when applied to YHWH, and meals something else when applied to humans.
Dan knows better than everyone, he just can’t or won’t prove what he knows to be True.
C
That this verse is Jesus claiming to be YHWH, is an important aspect that gets ignored too often. That Jesus is saying that no one is “good” like He/YHWH is “good” doesn’t preclude people being “good” per the other meaning of the word.
Dan’s problem is that he needs for humans to be intrinsically and ontologically “good”, while using “imperfect” to explain away the reality that his intrinsically “good” people do lots of “not good” stuff.
C
It's always special when Dan decides to impose on Jesus and the Gospel writer his hunch about what the "main point" of anything is.
Strangely enough, the "I REALLY think..." is Dan criticizing others for something that he does quite often.
It seems worth noting that Jesus did refer to the righteousness of the Pharisees and tell His followers that they would do well to emulate the righteousness of the Pharisees. That's not to suggest that He was calling the Pharisees "good", but He was pretty complimentary of their righteousness.
Dan regularly announces that he's "done" somewhere and proceeds to continue to rant endlessly.
Yeah, that whole blood sacrifice/atonement system established in the Torah and that Jesus took part in (before His own sacrificial death for the final sacrifice).
When Jesus cleansed the Temple, His problem wasn't the existence of sacrificial animals being provided/sold to travelers who couldn't bring their own. He could have spoken out against the practice, but He didn't. Probably due to Him being aware of His role within that system.
It doesn’t matter, he’s a good person.
Just need to say, Blogger really sucks.
---Art
It appears the technical issue I'm experiencing is sourced at my blog. I'm submitting these comments from my phone and they even come up under my handle, rather than "anonymous". I don't get it!
Seems I can't use my desktop to post on very many Blogger sites. What follows is something I've been trying to post in reply to Craig's comment since I published it:
Indeed. This "throwaway line" carries far more meaning than any "throwaway line" ever possibly could! What it doesn't carry, what is not suggested by the verse, is that the RYR is wrong or sinning by applying the word to the One Who...as far as the RYR or the many of those nearby likely know or believe...is just another man. It's just an important clarification that the distinction between the Only One Who is truly "good" and the rest of us us starkly vast. It's as if He was to have said, "Use the word for mortal man if you wish, but just remember the truth, that there is no one truly good but God alone." This does indeed indicate something more important than mere "imperfection" or "mark missing". In fact, it means everything, and I'll leave it right there in the event Dan decides to return and we'll see if his vaunted grasp of the nuanced can draw out that meaning.
Blogger can be very frustrating and not very user friendly.
The text seems clear that the RYR was an observant Jew who tried very hard to live his life in accordance with Torah law. He's asking a reasonable question, from his perspective. I suspect that he sensed something in Jesus that convinced him the Jesus was more than an ordinary rabbi. Yet, they RYR clearly was making the case for his righteousness based on his actions, as that was pretty much of Torah law worked along with atonement sacrifices.
Clearly "good" is a term which covers a lot of ground, but it seems reasonable to say that YHWH is objectively "good", while everyone or everything else is subjectively or comparatively "good". I can't see why acknowledging that is such a problem. I have no problem referring to someone as "good", while knowing that I'm not comparing their "goodness" to the "goodness" of YHWH.
In a perfect world, we might have a different word or something. Historically, it seems clear that there was a different meaning of the word when applied to YHWH, than when applied to humans. I think that we all intuitively understand this and functionally operate as if this is the case. Yet some of us want to live in the "grey area" by conflating the two meanings.
What Dan is doing is what he too often does: he puts his own preferences, experiences, "science"...whatever he needs...over Scripture. Here, between Mark 10"18 alone and then all the other verses I cited as well which prove Scripture teaches we are each born with a sin nature, Scripture clearly teaches that which is in direct conflict with Dan's perceptions and preferences. Given the conflict, Dan presumes...arrogantly and audaciously...that it is Scripture which is wrong. Of course, he rejects that in favor of saying that somehow, our humble acceptance of the message a plain reading of the text clearly reveals is "misunderstanding", "bad interpretation", "human theories and traditions".
Yet no example he's given stands as evidence of his position being more likely (or at all probable, actually), as they fail actually address the challenge or our criticisms of his objections. Two or three times now he's referenced Jesus speaking of what "good" men do and insists it's a reference to the existence of good men. That's not true. The verse is instructive, not descriptive of any specific person, which we know because Jesus didn't mention any specific person. He presents a list of Biblical figures, none of whom are referred to as "good", but righteous in the sight of God at best based on their desire to be so.
And that, too, is a distinction regarding what constitutes "good" and why we aren't. God IS good. Nothing He does is NOT good because He IS good. He's the source of all which is good. "Good" does not flow from the essence of mankind as it does from God. Scripture furthermore states that what good men do is that which comes from God.
Dan wants to pretend Mark 10:18 is a "slap in the face" of the RYR and Trabues of that time. But these all regard themselves as good and regard others who abide the Law as good...just like Dan, though like the Pharisees, Dan doesn't truly abide the Law. (Indeed, one could easily say that the RYR is a better person than Dan given how he has kept the Law since childhood, while Dan has come to reject so much of it.) Jesus's response to the RYR was to check his pride as what a great guy he's been to show that nothing he's done makes him "good". Nothing he can do will make him good. It's God who makes us good through our acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. Indeed, after His disciples worry, "Who then can be saved?" (v.26), Jesus tells them in v.27, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." Why would it be impossible if we're good? For that matter, why would we need to be saved if we're already good? It's impossible because of our sin nature and without God (Jesus, in this case) it remains impossible.
What I often see with Dan, is that he simply replaces whatever he doesn't like (sin nature) with something he finds palatable (imperfection or bent toward sin). He acknowledges the inevitability that every single human is inexorably going to sin, wants to play semantic games with the reason.
Functionally, there is no difference between Dan's semantic gymnastics around the terminology and the doctrine of a Sin nature. If Sin is inevitable, then the mechanics or terminology seem less important.
Obviously Jesus was showing the RYR that his pride in his good works, and his idolatry of money were what stands between him and the "Kingdom of Heaven". Just as obviously, Jesus is clear (as you note) that it requires the intervention of YHWH (through the Holy Spirit) to for anyone to be "good" in the sense that YHWH is "good". Because Jesus death was the atonement that makes us positionally "good" before YHWH, even though we practically still sin.
I can't see any possible way where Dan's hunch doesn't lead to a works based salvation. He seems clear that he judges people based on what he observes of their works or actions. He judges their "fruits" based on his subjective and biased hunches about what is "good" according to him.
Post a Comment