This is the standard discourse of Born Again Christians. You can read this in their tracks.

So morally speaking, there is no difference between following the Lord's command by repenting and disobeying God by not repenting?

They are both "not good"?

Can you elaborate and explain that?

This is a call for all men to repent.>

<TD> said that when you follow God's command and repent, what you are doing is NOT GOOD.

Also, if you stubbornly resist repenting and break God's command, that is also NOT GOOD.

This means when God said Job was blameless, it meant that Job was no good and that all he did was no good. So God makes a special point about Job when he was no good and did no good just like everyone else?

Think, if nothing you do is good, then spreading the gospel is no good. When you love thy neighbor it is not good.

So God commands us to do NOT GOOD?

He says love thy neighbor, right? So if we do, we do what is not good?

<8 And why not say rather (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), “Let us do evil, that good may come”? Their damnation is just!>

This verse which <TD> also correctly said was quoted from Psalm 14 is also used in the argument salvation by grace vs salvation by works.

That's a rather strange conclusion from my remarks.>

I may have misunderstood your remarks. This is what I was responding to:

<Repentance is not the "good" thing, the cross is.>

God is good.
God's commands are good.
God commands us to repent.
To repent is to obey God.
It is good to obey God.
To repent is to *do* a good thing.

That's the chain of logic I'm using.

Now, if Romans is saying that nothing we *do* is good, then that means when we repent it's not a good thing to do.

But this flies in the face of logic, for when we obey God's good commands we must do good.

Let's look at another example. Jesus fed people when they were hungry.

Is this a good thing to *do*? Of course, Jesus did it. So when we feed those who are hungry, as Jesus did, we also *do* a good thing.

Point of clarity: let's not confuse one's state of being righteous or one's incapability of being righteous, and, insofar as good can mean righteous, let's not confuse one with *being* good or not *being* good, with *doing* a good thing.

Very important distinction, and I saw this shifting around a bit.

So far I've spoken of love, repentance, doing as Jesus did, following God's commands and God's finding Job pleasing.

To empty the word "good" of its essence in order to make the verse in Romans true at face value, leaves us with a meaningless word in all of these other instances, which we know is not true.

We know that it is good to love.
We know that it is good to repent.
We know that it is good to do as Jesus did.
We know that it is good to obey God's commands.

We know that when we do those things, we are not doing "not good", as Romans would have us think (because all our deeds are not-good).

We agree.

<The apostle Paul used that verse to emphasize that man needs grace from God for salvation.>

I suppose I can see that, although I haven't pondered it very much. Seems to make sense.

<This verse which <TD> also correctly said was quoted from Psalm 14 is also used in the argument salvation by grace vs salvation by works.>

I won't argue that, but the point was the question I asked:

Has man done more evil or good, overall, throughout the history of mankind.

<TD> brought up the verse, especially as it pertains to my question, <there is no one who does good, not even one.>

It is this that I am asking about. What does he mean no one does good?

When we obey God's commands by, say, repenting, how come we are *doing* not good?

Of course we are going good when we repent. The angels sing in heaven when we repent.

< Luke 15:7

"I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.>

I believe a distinction should be made here. The two examples you bring up are not exactly what I was thinking of.

1) People claiming their right based on their own beliefs, even when going contrary to society's general standards. The Nazis knew well enough that their actions were socially unacceptable, as evidenced by their covering up of the extermination camps. Likewise the KKK are wearing masks and not taking responsibility for their actions, hence they are themselves aware of their viewpoint being in the minority. ISIS is an example of a group that does take responsibility, but they are probably also well aware of social norms in general.

This may be termed a Nietzschian stance - if you are right, you may act upon it regardless of the majority's stance. In more recent years one can see a connection to the Postmodernist society where relativism has blurred out the social codes (i.e. "I am entitled to my viewpoint regardless of what other people think, it is worth just as much as theirs" - and here I am touching upon a major problem in contemporary philosophy, so easily to wander off subject). But all these cases are examples of moral standards in the minority. Such actions we may deem *evil* - although I dislike the word - as the perpetrators are/were aware of the prevailing moral standards.

2) When a moral standard has been generally accepted in a society, then it is improper to label actions *evil* if they are accepted by said moral standards. Examples are slave-keeping in ancient Rome, the "setting-out" of small children among Eskimos etc. This is where historical knowledge is needed to pass judgment.

This may be termed a Nietzschian stance - if you are right, you may act upon it regardless of the majority's stance. In more recent years one can see a connection to the Postmodernist society where relativism has blurred out the social codes (i.e. "I am entitled to my viewpoint regardless of what other people think, it is worth just as much as theirs" >

This is correct. What the Nazis and KKK did may have been socially unacceptable or out of fashion with the times, but if you do not think that moral values exist objectively then we can't say the Nazis or KKK did anything bad or evil.

So, when you think about slavery, the KKK or the Nazis, <troller>, you think to yourself, "that's not evil, just out of fashion", right? Therefore, if nothing is evil and nothing is good, then all actions are morally meaningless to you.

That is to say that objectively speaking, you don't think there is a moral difference between love and hate, kindness and cruelty, tolerance and intolerance, war and peace, nurture or torture, right?

<balance>, do not see any reason to believe that <balance> is any kind of objective virtue to be achieved, especially in moral actions. As a matter of fact, <troller>, if moral actions are neither good nor evil, then it makes no sense to say that balance is even sought, because there's nothing to put in the "evil" side of the scale and nothing to put in the "good" side of the scale. The idea of seeking balance, naturally or otherwise, would entail opposites achieving balance. In the moral landscape you described, which is Nietzschian, there is no need for a scale, no need or way to achieve balance.

So, bringing this back around to the original question (has man done more evil or good in the world), your final answer is it's equal.

You could be right about that, <sd>.

Let me ask you though, do you think that man *does* a good thing when he obeys God's command? Say God commands you to repent and you *do* repent. Have you done a good thing or a not-good thing?

This must seem like a trick question to anyone who just happens to read it out of the blue. The answer is so obvious. When you obey God's command you've done a good thing. When you disobey God's command you've done a not-good thing.

How could this be confusing?

Is this how Facebook stands for free speech?>

Liberalism:

With rights/liberties:
Free = tyranny.

Of course you have done a good thing. No question about that.>

Right. So then what does it mean in Romans where it says, <12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3)>

Let me recap just a little. This week's philosophical question was, <has man done more evil or more good> overall, in the history of man. In an answer to that question, <td> provided the verses from Romans and said that should clear it up.

But does it? What do we *really* understand about this verse?

Okay, this brings us around to today, to your post which was a response to my question.

You can clearly see that we both agree that men do at least some good things, like repenting. I made a case about love as well, rather than hate. I made a case about God being pleased with "blameless" Job.

All of this seems to falsify that verse in Romans.

Lil Kim wants to play chicken with Trump. I think this is a bad idea for Lil Kim. He has already threatened the US with nuclear destruction.

Would it be wise to ignore the nuclear threat?

I wouldn't say it's false. Otherwise all scriptures would be suspect.

The original verse in Psalms, I believe, were written by David in a time of great wickedness in the history of Israel. And so it must be a generalization.

Doug Hagmann joins Alex Jones live via Skype to break down intelligence he's received from infiltrating far-left, anti-Trump organizations and reveal their plan to spark a Bolshevik revolution."

https://www.facebook.com/8025673257...

Does that alter the quality of the act from moral to immoral, from good to evil?>

<BP:

Jesus fed people when they were hungry.

Is this a good thing to *do*? Of course, Jesus did it. So when we feed those who are hungry, as Jesus did, we also *do* a good thing.>

What if the artist who is selfishly, gluttonously, satisfying his own ego by creating art, is also feeding people's desire for art? Feeding (with art) those people who are hungry for art?

Can an action be both evil and good at the same time?

Now to complete the circle: <What if the main reason most works of art are created is to selfishly and gluttonously satisfy the ego and to foolishly seek one's own glory?>

Ever heard of the proverbial "starving artist"? 'Tis a proverb for a reason, it is frequently true. Van Gogh, for instance, lived in poverty and died young. If he was into being an artist for the glory, well, the joke's on him.

Nowadays his works fetch some of the most obscene amounts at auction of any art created by man. He never lived to see it.

I don't think artists can be great if they are trying to gluttonously satisfy the ego. They are great because they are passionate about their art. In fact, I think *in general* greatness is achieved by people who are driven by an inner motor, even an inner *need* to do what they do.

Or, to put it another way, how many great athletes say that they would play the game they love even if they weren't paid? Many have said that.

On the lighter side, when Jesus fed the hungry, was he feeding *starving artists*? The Bible doesn't say....

Giving people what they want isn't necessarily good. Someone could want some heroin to shoot up, and giving them a ride to downtown to find some isn't doing a good thing.

<Can an action be both evil and good at the same time?>

No.

<Ever heard of the proverbial "starving artist"? 'Tis a proverb for a reason, it is frequently true. Van Gogh, for instance, lived in poverty and died young. If he was into being an artist for the glory, well, the joke's on him.>

That doesn't change the if-then question this pertains to.

<I don't think artists can be great if they are trying to gluttonously satisfy the ego. They are great because they are passionate about their art. >

I think artists are great if their art is great.

But creating great art may not be necessarily a good thing.

<Maybe starving artists followed Jesus, hoping for loaves and fish>

That got a chuckle out of me.

I think the essence of what we do matters. Is sex immoral? Depends on if it's with your wife or your father's wife!

The philosophical question of the week was, has man done more evil or good, overall, in the history of mankind?