Sentences with phrase «moral people who»

God makes good stuff... Even good moral people who don't know he was made by him.

In recent years the belief in hell has waned among Protestants partly because of the difficulty of locating it in space but more from the conviction that a loving God would not want to condemn anyone — even a hardened sinner, to say nothing of a kind and highly moral person who is not a Christian — to endless torment.

For the record, I am not a PETA member, just a moral person who loves animals.

Not exact matches

«People who have financial means get the chance to have the moral, ethical and spiritual debates about which method to choose,» said Dawn Vander Kolk, an Illinois hospice social worker.

We need, to understand that they are fictional people, who are able to do things that real people can not, but I'm talking more about identifying with their moral code, their values in helping others and doing right from wrong.

Not everyone agrees on what is noble, for example, and there have been atrocious acts of history committed by people who sincerely believed they were acting on a moral ideal.

Given the huge number of moral disagreements in the world, we should think twice about becoming the sort of people who let such disagreements get in the way of engaging in mutually beneficial trade.

There is indeed something deeply wrong with a person who lacks principles, who has no moral core.

In a series of controlled experiments, we asked participants, mostly average Americans in their 30s and 40s, to read about and evaluate the actions of fictional people who behaved in either a moral or immoral way.

So, if a business relies on a brand to make money, the risk in any «moral» position it takes on a social issue is exactly in proportion to the number of people who might take the opposite view.

It's an impossible dilemma, and proof that we can't ever delegate big moral questions to the people who sell us things.

And in my book on morality and getting these people to grow up I again bring up the example of 19th century industrialists who were incredibly rich and often rather cruel in their business lives who reinvented themselves, so a Carnegie whose business career certainly wasn't exemplary in any moral sense.

«He's an egomaniac devoid of all moral sense» ---- said the society woman dressing for a charity bazaar, who dared not contemplate what means of self - expression would be left to her and how she would impose her ostentation on her friends, if charity were not the all - excusing virtue ---- said the social worker who had found no aim in life and could generate no aim from within the sterility of his soul, but basked in virtue and held an unearned respect from all, by grace of his fingers on the wounds of others ---- said the novelist who had nothing to say if the subject of service and sacrifice were to be taken away from him, who sobbed in the hearing of attentive thousands that he loved them and loved them and would they please love him a little in return ---- said the lady columnist who had just bought a country mansion because she wrote so tenderly about the little people ---- said all the little people who wanted to hear of love, the great love, the unfastidious love, the love that embraced everything, forgave everything, and permitted everything ---- said every second - hander who could not exist except as a leech on the souls of others.»

You only need to read the headlines to see the ethical and moral breaches in all walks of life (and that goes for scientists who who fudge figures as well as business people who fudge balance sheets).

The only people destroying the moral fiber of this country are all the religious people who judge others without knowing them.

You accuse Christians of being brainless and nasty, but most of the posts I've seen are from people who can't say enough to degrade and discredit others who take a moral stand on life, politics or whatever.

@Ralph N, For the record, though no one forces belief in god (except parents), religious folk are endlessly trying to impose their moral beliefs on people who don't share them.

Academic moral theory, like preaching, «stiffens the backbone» of one's coreligionists (or co «ideologues) by «convincing people who think like you that they are not alone in their beliefs [and] have the backing of someone who is confident, competent, articulate, and thoughtful.»

Unfortunately, little attention is given to understanding how human dignity of the clinician is threatened and violated in the current health care environment... [which] has led to the systemic violation of the dignity of the clinician (and ultimately that of persons who are sick), created moral distress among clinicians, and the collapse of the healing relationship.

Most I know are humanists; people who care about the rest of humanity regardless of their faith and who adhere to a moral code just as noble as anyone, just without a deity as the center of their life.

I'll leave that to people with horrible morals like Christians who believe in might makes right and subjective morality that allows god to do what they would otherwise NEVER consider to be moral for another being.

People who feel it goes against their own morals must say it all great and wonderful!

Some people who say it, really do believe in some equivalent of The Great Spirit, but those who don't usually mean» I'm reflective and moral, so please think well of me.»

every man is Jesus if is human a humanitarian who give they life the soldier the real citizen other are person and people we all are a family GOD is the woman we all had a mother think Obama mama is all our mama this nation brain wash because greed and ignorance everyday in deception and manipulation is world order that is why 9/11 call the police the CIA explain all in movie in deception the rich few know all is in the moral, respect and honor the president is correct all in the education but ignorance is bless because we all have greed, they want dome is shipper that is why gay a lot in this nation ignorance..

It is Christians who have no morals and no reasoning skills, otherwise they'd help people for real reasons instead of killing them for fake ones.

Someone who is a tyrants and terrorists who does not agree with them and wants them to be silent is a person who limits rights, choices, says what's moral and who and how to prey is what were against.

She is surrounded daily with supporters who bolster her views, people who understand themselves as moral crusaders, pursuing their aims with all the zeal inspired by political ideology or — perhaps more aptly — ersatz religion.

I have also seen people who turned away from the Church and / or broke a moral or ethical standard of the Church and they feel so guilty they think people in the Church are judging them when they are not.

For one I could point out 20 mispelling errors, «Mormonism» not a word, weird huh.I am a Mormon I do support Mitt and I did in 2008, but religion aside Mitt can get it done, and he has in the past!!!! Obama has failed the USA no doubt about that.Mitt's morals, family values is what America is on.Shame on the people who can't move past that, You (not me) voted on a black man for President and not a Mormon, turns out the Mormon Canidiate coud have changed the whole USA around cool huh.

A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell - mouths mercy, and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

Possibly, but why did the person who taught him know it was wrong... ad infinitum... eventually you have to come to the fact that there must have been a moral law giver (ie God) at some point.

what i disagree with — is when people who suffer from delusional thinking attempt to legislate their theistic morals onto the rest of society — depriving people of their freedom, rights, liberty and equality.

On atheism, who says another person's moral decisions are a mistake?

Convenient that people who argue that way about the law know that anything * they * do was just in the temporary purity code, and anything they find disgusting or uncomfortable they know was in the moral, eternal part.

It will «need religious people who live with moral integrity and show the power of their ideas in practice.»

The people who think that the Bible is the be-all and end - all of moral reasoning would insist that they are.

Similarly, apologists who would defend such abhorrent depictions of deity behaviors as justifiable deserve the disdain of any reasonable person who accepts empathy as the principal component of any viable moral framework.

at the end of the day i'd rather have an agnostic or atheist as president than someone who believes in some fairy tale, or thinks that god tells people what to do, or that religion is necessary for morals.

Yes, those who like to say that there are moral absolutes inherent in people, places, or things are clearly shown to be wrong by the simple existence of an unstable and diverse and contradictory bunch of «holy books».

This moral discipline informs Fredriksen's effort to present her subjects as persons who loved, aspired, and suffered, rather than as mere ciphers moved by abstract historical or cultural forces.

It must further be stipulated that there are moral people — at least in terms of the virtues appropriate to the temporal realm — who do not draw their morality from sources ostensibly religious in nature.

Roger Harding, head of public attitudes at the National Centre for Social Research who produced a report into the findings, was quoted by The Times as saying: «It suggests people are taking their moral views from elsewhere.»

Prominent academics and civil liberties organizations have raised the prospect of stripping churches of their tax exemptions and pursuing litigation to require private companies and civic groups to be led and staffed by people who pledge allegiance to the moral creed of the left.

Atheists can't explain why in a situation with two people who disagree on morals, one person can be wrong, and one person can be right.

There has been a total moral breakdown in this country and we have become like so many other nations who don't give a damn about people and support big business over its own workforce.

it was a collection of oral and written tales form the area that the people who wrote it hoped would teach morals to jewish children.as the pagans that lived around them did not have theytype that the first century jews would have aproved of.

Second - a point noted earlier - how are we to explain those people who do not seem to give a damn for the Good or for moral action in any form?

Aristotle wrote that the criterion of good moral action is not a principle or a law so much as «the man of practical wisdom» ¯ that is, the person in your environment who habitually makes the wisest and bravest decisions of anyone else you know.

I also was aware of the hypocrisy of how «gay» sin, or «non-virgin» sin, or other «moral» issues, were regarded far far differently than sins of omission, white lies, tax fudging, white collar crime in general (who is more sinful, the girl that has sex before marriage, or the CEO that knows his company is lax on pollution standards that affect the health of hundreds / thousands of people and animals that live nearby)

So, I sincerely and respectfully ask of individuals who back anti-choice campaigns by citing personal moral or religious reasons this question, which I ask out honest curiosity: how can you recognize the consequences, historically, of legally banning a certain choice a person makes, and maintain that your moral code has not been violated, or even argue that your moral or religious code has been upheld, or elevated?