Ship of Fools: The goody goody line.

Thread: The goody goody line. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026050

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge The fact that there aren't hordes of mealy-mouthed, namby-pamby, goody-goodies on this Ship is one of its many attractions, despite all the religious jabber it contains.

Some religious jabber coming up.....

This quote gave me to consider whether there's a 'goody goody' line beyond which (if we ever managed to cross it) others would no longer be able to engage with us.

While perfection must (surely?) be the ultimate aim, as we grow closer to God, it would separate us from the rest of humankind. Might this be why the Old Testament illustrates that people can't be face to face with God?

And yet, wasn't the perfect Jesus fully able to engage with people? There was nothing mealy-mouthed or namby pamby about him, the ultimate goody-goody!

I wonder whether the 'goody goody' stereotype might put some people off of religion altogether?

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
And yet, wasn't the perfect Jesus fully able to engage with people? There was nothing mealy-mouthed or namby pamby about him, the ultimate goody-goody!

Indeed.

quote:
I wonder whether the 'goody goody' stereotype might put some people off of religion altogether?

Probably ...

The strange thing, though, is that I've never actually met a 'mealy-mouthed, namby-pamby, goody-goody' in RL. [Confused]

I've met my fair share of pompous, interfering people - both within the church and out of it. [Help]

But namby-pamby goody-goodies, no! I honestly don't know what such a person looks like. [Confused]

But I've had the experience of being labelled a 'bleeding heart liberal' because, for example, I expressed concern about the way asylum seekers are treated in the press. Le sigh. [Smile]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
... wasn't the perfect Jesus fully able to engage with people? There was nothing mealy-mouthed or namby pamby about him, the ultimate goody-goody!

I wonder whether the 'goody goody' stereotype might put some people off of religion altogether?

Maybe this is because few on The Ship try to be Jesus while many more try to follow Him? Contrast the Son of God to those He chose as the twelve disciples. There were a varied lot, including fishermen. Have you ever met fishermen?

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

I think there's a difference between goody-goody and true goodness. To my ear, "goody-goody" connotes a self-righteous person who makes it pretty clear that they are better at being good than others are. And the "goodness" that the goody-goody aspires to is often that of observing somewhat arbitrary rules -- the goody-goody is the one who sucks up to authority and tries to be the teacher's pet.

The truly good person, on the other hand, doesn't put much thought into their own goodness and how it looks to others; they just get on with doing the right thing.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

The strange thing, though, is that I've never actually met a 'mealy-mouthed, namby-pamby, goody-goody' in RL.

I've met my fair share of pompous, interfering people - both within the church and out of it. But namby-pamby goody-goodies, no! I honestly don't know what such a person looks like.

But I've had the experience of being labelled a 'bleeding heart liberal' because, for example, I expressed concern about the way asylum seekers are treated in the press. Le sigh.

This resonates with me. It doesn't take long before the 'do-gooder' label springs up when someone tries to encourage the rehabilitation of prisoners rather than the punishment, either.

As for the caricature, it's unlikely to fit anyone IRL, do they ever?

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Maybe this is because few on The Ship try to be Jesus while many more try to follow Him? Contrast the Son of God to those He chose as the twelve disciples. There were a varied lot, including fishermen. Have you ever met fishermen?

One or two. The down to earth Peter wasn't averse to a cuss here and there. That doesn't mean that we should try to copy Peter, does it?

I can see the difference in attitude you're pointing out between those who try to follow Jesus and those who try to be Jesus. It's given me food for thought, thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel: I think there's a difference between goody-goody and true goodness. To my ear, "goody-goody" connotes a self-righteous person who makes it pretty clear that they are better at being good than others are. And the "goodness" that the goody-goody aspires to is often that of observing somewhat arbitrary rules -- the goody-goody is the one who sucks up to authority and tries to be the teacher's pet.

The truly good person, on the other hand, doesn't put much thought into their own goodness and how it looks to others; they just get on with doing the right thing.

The motivation for helping those in authority might be to make their task easier rather than to look good, but I get your drift and agree that getting on with it rather than comparing ourselves with others is the right way to go.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Contrast the Son of God to those He chose as the twelve disciples. There were a varied lot, including fishermen. Have you ever met fishermen?

Fishermen aren't nasty enough to be tax collectors, though. I believe because of what the apostles had to say. That some of them would put up with a tax collector in their midst as they tell the story only helps to make it more believable.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
<snip> . . . While perfection must (surely?) be the ultimate aim, as we grow closer to God, it would separate us from the rest of humankind. . . .

What an interesting idea -- two of them actually.

First, when applied to humans, what would 'perfection' look like? consist of?

'Perfect' according to whom, precisely? I have trouble imagining someone who, interacted with by a varied assortment of others, would be described by all those varied others as "perfect." Even Jesus could not meet this standard; otherwise, he wouldn't have been executed. There were those who hated him. There are still those who have little use for him.

Even more interesting is the notion of separating oneself from humanity by becoming truly "good." When we consider this in light of Laurelin's experience, isn't the name-calling she (he?) endures a form of this separation, though it's others who have enforced that separation?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Odd, any prejudice towards a "goody, goody". If someone truly is good, doesn't swear, insult, behave badly, etc. why is this horrible? Why is this off-putting?

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
'Perfect' according to whom, precisely? I have trouble imagining someone who, interacted with by a varied assortment of others, would be described by all those varied others as "perfect." Even Jesus could not meet this standard; otherwise, he wouldn't have been executed. There were those who hated him. There are still those who have little use for him.

I don't think the reason why Jesus was killed was because he wasn't perfect. (Of course, as a Christian, I believe that he was ...) Genuinely good people - or, at least, people who fight for something good, e.g. Martin Luther King, etc etc etc. - often get a very nasty reaction from other people who resent their attempts to do something good. For the Christian, that principle would apply a thousand-fold to Jesus.

P.S. Oh, and I found the original context of your quote, and much is explained. [Big Grin]

So now I'm revising mentally what I said earlier about not knowing any namby-pamby mealy-mouthed goody-goodies in RL. No, I don't, but I do think there are some online ...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

IME, being a 'goody-goody' is different from actual goodness. I know plenty of 'goody-goody' types - both Christian and otherwise - but also those who are Christian or otherwise who are truly good.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

English, gotta love it.
I've heard the term primarily applied to those who do not partake of the speaker's vice. Little thought to ought else.
No, to forstall that thought, it has never been applied to me.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Odd, any prejudice towards a "goody, goody". If someone truly is good, doesn't swear, insult, behave badly, etc. why is this horrible? Why is this off-putting?

Maybe because, where we Christians are concerned , it has the habit of coming across as false.

Odd also, ISTM, that someone like princess di never had her adoration diminished by the 'goody, goody' tag . Probably due to the fact that she wasn't *truly good*. Name me someone who is.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
lilBuddha: Odd, any prejudice towards a "goody, goody". If someone truly is good, doesn't swear, insult, behave badly, etc. why is this horrible? Why is this off-putting?

I'm not a native speaker, but to me the term 'goody goody' can refer to a person who has all the nice manners, but who will fail to do good when it really counts (or who will even do bad). I prefer someone who swears but who will do good.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The problem with any language, perhaps especially English, is there are words and terms which will have different meanings or flavour to native speakers as well as non-native speakers.
Which is why I added the context of my experience.
As to swearing, doing or not doing is irrelevant to one's goodness.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

There are different reasons for not swearing,and the problem is when someone tries to prohibit swearing you do not know why.

Firstly the reason many Christians do not do it, is simply because so many swear words are blasphemous. This is probably why, on the ship, when people do swear, they tend to choose those around bodily function (the other main source of swear words).

Secondly there are those who do not want it to appear so as not to cause offence among people who do not swear.

Thirdly there are those who want it not to appear because it is against the standards they have are used to. It becomes a method of enforcing their standards on everyone else. This is particularly associated with conservative Christianity.

Jengie

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

First, when applied to humans, what would 'perfection' look like? consist of?

'Perfect' according to whom, precisely? I have trouble imagining someone who, interacted with by a varied assortment of others, would be described by all those varied others as "perfect." Even Jesus could not meet this standard; otherwise, he wouldn't have been executed. There were those who hated him. There are still those who have little use for him.

'Perfect' according to God's standards, not ours, as guided by the Holy Spirit, I'd say. Perfection applied to humans looks like Jesus. It was because he met the standard that they hated and crucified him. Perhaps it's because he met the standard that some have little use for him now.

quote:

Even more interesting is the notion of separating oneself from humanity by becoming truly "good." When we consider this in light of Laurelin's experience, isn't the name-calling she (he?) endures a form of this separation, though it's others who have enforced that separation?

That's what got me thinking about your quote. At some point, others may begin to react to someone's goodness in a negative way, rather than to be inspired by it. It was noticeable to me that some disliked the notion of Mother Theresa's goodness so much that they were determined to discredit her work after she died. I don't know whether there is a line, but Jengie John's words may speak into the question:

quote:
Thirdly there are those who want it not to appear because it is against the standards they have are used to. It becomes a method of enforcing their standards on everyone else

Could it be that some would like to enforce their standards on everyone else, but their standards are not aimed at perfection?

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I think the "do gooder" label is often used to excuse the speaker from engaging in the good acts s/he is disparaging. As soon as you acknowledge that person X is good and is doing good things, you pretty quickly have to ask yourself some uncomfortable questions about why you are not following suit. Labelling it "goody goody" belittles the goodness, and excuses your lack of it.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel: I think there's a difference between goody-goody and true goodness. To my ear, "goody-goody" connotes a self-righteous person who makes it pretty clear that they are better at being good than others are. And the "goodness" that the goody-goody aspires to is often that of observing somewhat arbitrary rules -- the goody-goody is the one who sucks up to authority and tries to be the teacher's pet.

The truly good person, on the other hand, doesn't put much thought into their own goodness and how it looks to others; they just get on with doing the right thing.
The motivation for helping those in authority might be to make their task easier rather than to look good, but I get your drift and agree that getting on with it rather than comparing ourselves with others is the right way to go.

It was the sucking up that I was highlighting. IME, the goody-goody is usually sycophantically seeking the approval of an authority figure, and is not trying to promote the general good.

Of course, working with those in authority to achieve a worthwhile goal is not being a goody-goody according to my use of the term. That's just doing good.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

"Goody goody" = Ned Flanders. Would anybody seriously want to spend time with anyone like that? I know I wouldn't.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

I wouldn't want to be married to Ned, but I wouldn't mind living next door to him.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

And yet, wasn't the perfect Jesus fully able to engage with people? There was nothing mealy-mouthed or namby pamby about him, the ultimate goody-goody!

I don't think Jesus was perfect - he was human - I am sure he had to learn and grow and make mistakes just like the rest of us.

The Divine within him would give everything he did a perfect intention and motivation, but I can't see that he never made a mistake.

That would make him super-human, which he wasn't imo.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge The fact that there aren't hordes of mealy-mouthed, namby-pamby, goody-goodies on this Ship is one of its many attractions, despite all the religious jabber it contains.
Some religious jabber coming up.....

This quote gave me to consider whether there's a 'goody goody' line beyond which (if we ever managed to cross it) others would no longer be able to engage with us.

<snip>

And yet, wasn't the perfect Jesus fully able to engage with people? There was nothing mealy-mouthed or namby pamby about him, the ultimate goody-goody!

I wonder whether the 'goody goody' stereotype might put some people off of religion altogether?

In my mind, a "goody-goody" is a negative term, not a positive one. It's a false or fake goodness that relies on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. It is usually associated with a need to be approved of or looked highly upon by others.

Jesus IMV is not a goody-goody. Quite the reverse.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

While perfection must (surely?) be the ultimate aim, as we grow closer to God, it would separate us from the rest of humankind. Might this be why the Old Testament illustrates that people can't be face to face with God?

Is perfection the ultimate aim? Is it even possible in this world?

No.

I can't think of a single perfect person.

Which raises another question.

What is a perfect person?

Jesus was a "person" with two natures: divine and human.

We are a "person" with one nature: human.

So Jesus is automatically a different kettle of fish from us even tho Chalcedon states he was fully human (yet without sin*).

(* can you think of a human without sin?)

As for the goody-goody stereotype being a turn off from religion: yes absolutely - it's usually called hypocrisy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

To me the term goody-goody conveys a sort of knowing self-righteousness and a mission to communicate to other people how righteous you are/a mission to point out the faults of others.

But that's just my take.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Evensong: In my mind, a "goody-goody" is a negative term, not a positive one. It's a false or fake goodness that relies on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. It is usually associated with a need to be approved of or looked highly upon by others.

Jesus IMV is not a goody-goody. Quite the reverse.

It is in this light that I understand the stories of His dealings with the Pharisees in the Gospels. They were goody-goody.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

Jesus IMV is not a goody-goody. Quite the reverse.

Didn't He even take someone to task for actually calling Him "good" ?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think Jesus was perfect - he was human - I am sure he had to learn and grow and make mistakes just like the rest of us.

The Divine within him would give everything he did a perfect intention and motivation, but I can't see that he never made a mistake.

That would make him super-human, which he wasn't imo.

I don't think that the kind of perfection we're aiming for (if we are) is one that says we could never make mistakes eg as we learn, nor is it one that tries to be super-human. It would rather be one which demonstrates spiritual virtues like honesty, faithfulness, gentleness, kindness and love and stands firm against all that is harmful to ourselves or our fellow human beings.

Does that mean trying to enforce those standards on others? We all do this to some extent, as we legislate against murder, theft etc.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Didn't He even take someone to task for actually calling Him "good" ?

He said that God alone was good - but the Son is surely good, as the Father is good? Must his humanity have been imperfect?

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong: Is perfection the ultimate aim? Is it even possible in this world?

No.

I can't think of a single perfect person.

Which raises another question.

What is a perfect person?

Jesus was a "person" with two natures: divine and human.

We are a "person" with one nature: human.

So Jesus is automatically a different kettle of fish from us even tho Chalcedon states he was fully human (yet without sin*).

(* can you think of a human without sin?)

As for the goody-goody stereotype being a turn off from religion: yes absolutely - it's usually called hypocrisy.

There is no human without sin, except that once we've been forgiven and cleansed from our sin, are we not clean at least for a short while?

None of us is perfect imv, whether or not we've been cleansed, as we all have some imperfections in our natures, i.e. harmful tendencies, still to be addressed and ironed out, under the guidance of and with the refining fire of the Holy Spirit. So yes, I think that perfection, as in Christ-likeness, is the ultimate aim, even though it's unlikely to have been completed in this world.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0