Does being misled by religion make one a bad person?

[garbonzo]

This is a cross post from here to get more views, and it might be a better category for it anyway: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....orum-on-Reddit

Hello friends, I've posted here a lot over the course of me deconverting from a Jehovah's Witness and afterward. I go to the exjw subreddit on Reddit.com for a community to go to for support, discussion, etc.

But recently I got into a debate about ethics with a mod on the subreddit. He seems to hate me or at least dislike me very much for debating with him on an honest subject. I have no idea why. Ever since the beginning he has had a hostile tone in his discussion instead of a respectful debate as I wanted in the first place.

The reason why I am posting here is I need some help. I either need clarification on the subject if I am indeed wrong on the matter, or some support on the subreddit because everyone seems to be taking his side. I have no idea if it's because I'm wrong on the matter, if it is a matter of opinion, or if since he is a mod he is persuading their opinion on the matter. I have no idea, so I'd like some help from the smart and reasonable people on here. I don't believe I am wrong, and trust me I have went over this so many times in my head wondering what I could be thinking wrong.

So since everyone was against me, of course I have to wonder if I am wrong, so I asked a random guy on my MSN Messenger contacts list who bought something off me a long time ago. This should answer all your questions:

Him: Hello.
Me: Hey.
Him: Chillin' man. You?
Me: Checking my email.
Me: Are you a philosopher?
Me: A thinker?
Him: Word.
Him: Why?
Him: lol
Me: I have a question .
Me: What makes a person bad? What is a bad person?
Him: Depends what you consider bad.
Me: Let's try another way.
Him: ok
Me: I could find definitions of "bad person" on the internet.
Me: Basically: 1. a person who hurts others 2. a person who *deliberately* hurts others.
Him: Doesn't mean they're bad.
Me: What do you mean?
Him: If someone is mentally ill, then they hurt another, it doesn't make them bad.
Him: Just means they need help and to see the world in anothers view.
Me: Very nice thinking.
Me: What if they were brainwashed?
Him: Same as above. They need to come to realization that it isn't particularlly right to hurt someone.
Me: Ok, to me you absolutely have the right answers.
Me: This is why I asked this. But I've been floored by like people on Reddit who don't think the same.
Me: I'm an exjw, ex- jehovah's witness. JWs have a controversial policy you might of heard of. they don't accept blood because they think the bible says to "abstain from blood" (it was taken out of context, but that is irrelevant).
Him: I understand.
Me: So sometimes it causes weighty decisions to be made. such as if your child needs a blood transfusion. well JWs are misled by writings of some crazy old men in brooklyn. they believe in the resurrection, or an afterlife like other religions, so they believe if their child dies, they will still have everlasting life in this other world. they have good intentions. *they* don't believe it is immoral.
Me: We know by our standards and reality standards that it is.
Me: But that doesnt make them bad people I believe.
Him: Agreed.
Me: Because their intentions were honest and sincere.
Him: I totally agree.
Me: Long debate on Reddit http//www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/wpbxs/new_zealand_parents_deny_daughter_lifesaving/cfdkz
Him: A lot of ignorant people.
Me: Getting pulverized by people who dont get it. I believe their opinions are being swayed because a mod or respected member is against me. Not that they cant think for themselves but that they just cant see where I am coming from because they are seeing what I believe as like "responsibility". Which I agree they are responsible for their actions, that just doesnt make them bad people.
Me: I'm so glad you agree. I was beginning to believe i was crazy. =/
Him: No, no, not at all.
Me: Thanks so much. :P
Him:

EDIT: Cleaned up the IM sp34k.


So what do you think?

TL;DR:

What makes someone a bad person?

Is it someone who deliberately does someone wrong or just plain someone who does something wrong?

(This is the main gist of the whole debate I have come to the conclusion.)

Note: Before you read, I want to say that my illustration with: "What if he turns around and molests the child?" may be a bit irrelevant, and that may have provoked the hostile attitude, but that shouldn't detract from the main point I wanted to get across: Just because someone is misled, and does wrong, it doesn't make them an inherently bad person.

My line of reasoning with bringing that up is that this is a complicated subject. Just because someone does something wrong, it doesn't make them bad, and just because someone does something right, it doesn't make them good. *The act* may be good, but the motives have to be taken into consideration. If the parents saves the child with the intentions of abusing it later, that is a bad person, even though the act was good. If a parent neglects to save the child because they are misled and think and truly believe they are doing what is right and morally right for the child, it doesn't make them a bad person. The act was bad, but motives count.



I hope you guys understand and if you do I would really appreciate if you could respond to some of those people there or leave your support here and I may link them to it if you can't respond there.

"ScrewYouAndYourHorse" seems the most open ATM, but "JWTA" is the hostile one and has been so closed-minded and unreasonable it is scary, attacking me half the time instead of debating the subject. Such as, "the amount of downvotes you get proves that I'm right." When that doesn't prove anything, it's just basically an appeal to authority.

Thanks so much for reading guys! And I *am* open-minded, so if you have a problem with my logic here, PLEASE let me know so I can correct this thinking. Thanks!

[kx000]

What makes someone a bad person?

Is it someone who deliberately does someone wrong or just plain someone who does something wrong?

You can not call a natured man wrong, ever. If a man lives by nature he is right. My nature states to immediately segregate rapist, and murderers from myself.

[Balerion]

You can not call a natured man wrong, ever. If a man lives by nature he is right. My nature states to immediately segregate rapist, and murderers from myself.

That's absolute bullshit. A psychopath who enjoys inflicting pain on people then, by your definition, is right when he torture-murders someone. So is the pedophile when he rapes a little boy in the shower.

Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

[garbonzo]

That's absolute bullshit. A psychopath who enjoys inflicting pain on people then, by your definition, is right when he torture-murders someone. So is the pedophile when he rapes a little boy in the shower.

Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

I agree Balerion. What do you think on this subject? Or are you undecided?

[Balerion]

I agree Balerion. What do you think on this subject? Or are you undecided?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking me what makes a person bad? I'm afraid that question is too broad. Even people who do bad things intentionally may not be doing them for bad reasons.

[arauca]

That's absolute bullshit. A psychopath who enjoys inflicting pain on people then, by your definition, is right when he torture-murders someone. So is the pedophile when he rapes a little boy in the shower.

.

How can you get a hard dick on looking a little boy in the shower ? Unless your mind is perturbed

[Balerion]

How can you get a hard dick on looking a little boy in the shower ? Unless your mind is perturbed

Are you telling me you're unfamiliar with the concept of pedophilia?

Anyway, the point is that it is in a pedophile's nature to have sex with children. By kx000's logic, they are doing nothing wrong.

[Grumpy]

Bad is bad, no matter the motivation of the person being bad. Religious belief is not an excuse, nor is attraction or goals(the ends do not justify the ends).

Grumpy

[Balerion]

Bad is bad, no matter the motivation of the person being bad. Religious belief is not an excuse, nor is attraction or goals(the ends do not justify the ends).

Grumpy

The act can be bad regardless of intent. I don't think anyone's questioning that. But can the person be called bad strictly on the basis of them committing a bad act? I think that's much more difficult question.

[Grumpy]

Balerion

The act can be bad regardless of intent. I don't think anyone's questioning that. But can the person be called bad strictly on the basis of them committing a bad act? I think that's much more difficult question.

I don't. We each have a responsibility for our own actions, no matter what the motivation. Nazi soldiers were executed(rightly, I believe)for following orders to do evil things based on the ideology and goals of Nazism. Religions are no different or any better reasons to do evil things, nor are they any better at excusing the bad actor for his actions. Another thing is that there are no bad or good people, there are just people who do bad or good things. We call people who do bad things evil or bad, but it is a value judgement on the preponderance of the evidence of their behavior, not a definitive classification of the person's nature, but motive is irrelevant.

Grumpy

[Balerion]

Balerion



I don't. We each have a responsibility for our own actions, no matter what the motivation. Nazi soldiers were executed(rightly, I believe)for following orders to do evil things based on the ideology and goals of Nazism. Religions are no different or any better reasons to do evil things, nor are they any better at excusing the bad actor for his actions. Another thing is that there are no bad or good people, there are just people who do bad or good things. We call people who do bad things evil or bad, but it is a value judgement on the preponderance of the evidence of their behavior, not a definitive classification of the person's nature, but motive is irrelevant.

Grumpy

The Nazis are an extreme example, and one that really doesn't apply here, because no one who put them on trial agreed with their motives. What about when the US bombs a neighborhood and kills 20+ civilians while taking out a high-value target? They just killed 20+ civilians, which in any other context would make the pilot a mass-murderer. Yet because it is war, and there is an end that people generally agree upon reaching even by means they would not--and could not--in any other setting, they are forgiven. Do you consider those pilots to be bad people? It seems to me that motive means everything, at least when determining a person's character.

[SciWriter]

Things go as they 'will' and do as they do, unless someone can show that one's 'will' doesn't depend on anything.

[garbonzo]

Things go as they 'will' and do as they do, unless someone can show that one's 'will' doesn't depend on anything.

I don't know what you mean.

[garbonzo]

The Nazis are an extreme example, and one that really doesn't apply here, because no one who put them on trial agreed with their motives. What about when the US bombs a neighborhood and kills 20+ civilians while taking out a high-value target? They just killed 20+ civilians, which in any other context would make the pilot a mass-murderer. Yet because it is war, and there is an end that people generally agree upon reaching even by means they would not--and could not--in any other setting, they are forgiven. Do you consider those pilots to be bad people? It seems to me that motive means everything, at least when determining a person's character.

I agree with you. This is probably the most complicated subject I have come across. No matter "who is right" or if it is all subjective opinion, I don't feel that my opinion should have been dismissed like that on Reddit calling me an insane person.


You could go Grumpy's route and label a person a bad person if they hurt other people without considering motives, but you would be even labeling people that are forced to do a bad act a bad person.

I was raised a JW and having sex outside of marriage was considered a bad act.

I don't know if it still goes on or if it is typical, but if a woman is raped she would still be excommunicated since the act was still bad. The background or motives behind what happened was not considered. Do you agree with that?

This goes to show that motives do need to be considered.

[garbonzo]

Bump. Anymore thoughts on this?

[Buddha12]

Society decides what is good and bad by making laws both written and unwritten as to what is "good" and Bad" within each society. Then there's the entire world society which also tries to make laws also that cover good and bad behavior from all citizens around the globe no matter what their own society has written or understood. So we go by those laws which we all are a part of and help to make those laws just for all people within every society if at all possible.

[Balerion]

I agree with you. This is probably the most complicated subject I have come across. No matter "who is right" or if it is all subjective opinion, I don't feel that my opinion should have been dismissed like that on Reddit calling me an insane person.


You could go Grumpy's route and label a person a bad person if they hurt other people without considering motives, but you would be even labeling people that are forced to do a bad act a bad person.

Well that's just it. People can be hurt (or worse) by others who have nothing but good intentions. I'm disappointed--though not surprised--that Grumpy ducked out of the conversation without offering his opinion on the hypothetical scenario I offered. It seems like whenever his simplistic worldview is challenged, he buckles. But I suppose abandoning a thread is better than what he did last time, which was degrade the discussion with insults. Still, if he'd like to comment, I'd love to hear it.

I was raised a JW and having sex outside of marriage was considered a bad act.

I don't know if it still goes on or if it is typical, but if a woman is raped she would still be excommunicated since the act was still bad. The background or motives behind what happened was not considered. Do you agree with that?

I'm not sure how many still follow it, but yes, if a woman does not fight as much as possible and scream as loud as she can, the rape is considered fornication. To compound the problem, if she's married, it's considered adultery. Just goes to show the ignorance and patriarchal nature of the Abrahamic faiths. What's ironic about this, at least in terms of how it applies to this discussion, is that the bible does consider the context. If a woman fights as hard as she can, it isn't fornication. If she has a gun to her head, of course, or a knife to her throat, and complies for the sake of her life, she's "at fault." It's warped, but it's context.

This goes to show that motives do need to be considered.

Absolutely, and we do exactly that in real life. If things were as black-and-white as Grumpy said, every doctor who killed a patient during an operation would go to prison, and every police officer would lose their badge and get the gas chamber for killing an armed suspect. But it doesn't work that way, because context matters.

[kx000]

That's absolute bullshit. A psychopath who enjoys inflicting pain on people then, by your definition, is right when he torture-murders someone. So is the pedophile when he rapes a little boy in the shower.

Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

Yes, just as I am right to do what I love. I'd love to get rid of these clowns here and now, once and for all.

[kx000]

Are you telling me you're unfamiliar with the concept of pedophilia?

Anyway, the point is that it is in a pedophile's nature to have sex with children. By kx000's logic, they are doing nothing wrong.

And neither do we when we have to kill them.

Wtf is it to convict a murderer, then kill him. How about isolating these people. Segregation from evil right now.

[Balerion]

Yes, just as I am right to do what I love. I'd love to get rid of these clowns here and now, once and for all.

I'm sorry, this is absolute drivel. I was trying to avoid this, but I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list.