Everything is possible if you believe in Jesus.

If you define "good" by Whig terms, no.

>>1326072
Being a "good person" is subjective.

>>1326072
Is it possible to be [...] a good person

Yes, of course.
However it is impossible to be an intelligent person.
Being a Christian relies on believing in traditional authorship and historicity of the Gospels, and half of the letters attributed to Paul not being pseudo eponymous.
Along with countless other examples of mental gymnastics that an actual intelligent person would see through in an instant.

Any field where the believers all primarily practice in apologetic is not an intelligent field. It's a field for the easily brainwashed. The gullible. The stupid.

>>1326072
Don't confuse christians with catholics

A person is good when they follow what god asks them to do. Good is intrinsically part of doing what god asks.

>>1326072
Yep.

>>1326487
*fart*

Define good.

>>1328209
>child sacrifice is good

>>1328231
Child sacrifice is not good. Giving to the poor is not good. Saving a life is not good. What makes things good or bad is whether it adheres to God's calls.

God is good and anything he asks of a good christian is good.

>>1328231
Christianity is literally the only religion in the only religion that rejects sacrifice, that's the entire point of it.

>>1328301
No, you are asked to sacrifice yourself in Christianity. God sacrificed himself to save everyone. Since humans have committed grave offense to God, he must sacrifice himself, his family, his animals, his wealth, and his life to God in return to appease our offended God.

If you cannot sacrifice these small things, you are not a proper Christian.

>>1328301
I'm not talking about the religion of Christianity specifically.
His point was that "Anything god asks you to do is intrinsically good".
And god asked abraham to sacrifice his son to him.
Even if you don't buy into the idea that the story was changed to remove the sacrifice that still leads to the conclusion that child sacrifice is good, because god asked Abraham to do it.
Of course he ended up completely conceding the point anyway >>1328277.

>>1326487
>leibniz spinoza kant fichte hegel nietszhe are dumb

>>1328569
If they can't see through the blatantly fictitious historicity of Abrahamic text, then yeah, I'd call the stupid.

>>1328597
God you are dumb.

How about you for a moment decide they were actually pretty smart and try to sole your problem as if you knew there was a god.
If you know 100% there is a god how can your historicity problems be solved or how can thy be made irrelevant?

Dont tell me how you solved it, i dont care.

>>1328615
I'm dumb?
You're the one who literally advocating ignoring historicity problems on the grounds of faith.

>>1328615
Also, there may be a God.
I personally don't believe that, but I can't claim to know everything.
However, anybody who has actually done research can say with the upmost amount of certainty that Abrahamic religions are a load of bunk if you're actually looking to believe in something.

>>1328628
Hegel was a luthern and was well aware of history and put an emphesis on history in his system of philosophy.

>>1328875
i.e the dielectics of history as god evolves with man towards complete self awarness.

>>1326072

No.

There are none good but God.

Being a Christian only means that you're alive, when before you were dead.