Sentences with phrase «most moral people»

I can't help but feel that you keep misunderstanding this is because you always assume you are the most moral person in the room and so no one could be more demanding ethically than you...

Not exact matches

Since gossip is most often akin to condemning other people's faults, it also puts the confidants on the same level, reassuring both that they «operate in the same moral universe,» and have the same views on what's acceptable, what's wildly inappropriate, and what's just plain funny.

The moral of the story here is this: Most investors, both everyday people and professionals, lose to the market.

Most people would also regard it as an example of the residual problem of the lender - of - last - resort — «moral hazard».

Most people's moral compass tells them something is wrong with that; not in Islam.

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.

What most people claim is a decision on morals is a decision based on how similar someone else is to them.

Since most people rely on some kind of substance to help them escape pain, to relax, or to socialize, the moral question is whether the immediate good outweighs the possible harm» something very specific to each situation.

I have never found that atheists are very moral people, actually most I have known have been liars and hostile individuals.

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.

There are many songs written and played by people against whom I have the most fundamental and passionate disagreements in the moral and intellectual realms (which are the most important ones), yet hearing their songs can evoke ecstatic feelings that are very much like feelings of worship and longing for God.

I am the mother of 3 children and am an atheist (and a moral, law abiding, kind, charitable person like most other of my fellow humans regardless of religious affiliation).

His father, whom he regarded as a close friend and the most important person in his life, drove home the same moral teachings:

Atheists can be exceptionally moral people and religious fanatics can be some the the most self - serving amoral people on earth.

And to live in society and even just have friends one must prove he or she is a «moral» person, this morality is just a morality that lacks gods, such as a belief that what is good is what brings about the most happiness or freedom or whatever your ethical system supports.

What good are morals if the one giving them supports morals that most people consider to be awful like slavery and discrimination against women, gays and the handicapped, as well as beating children and slaves without punishment in some cases?

You see, when people make the statement that objective moral standards don't exist, most people are not willing to think that through to its implications.

If it is evident that Christians are not held to fulfilling the most momentous vow they will ever make to another person, young people and others may be forgiven for thinking that the churches are not entirely serious in their moral teaching about other matters, especially those related to sexuality.

One of the most insulting assumptions of many religious persons is that agnostics / atheists are incapable of having morals.

Most things are, but it is worse when the people doing it are so fervent in their «knowledge» of what is right and moral and good and the stakes they claim are involved.

The moral framework of Islam states the principles of etiquette for polite society for the common people as well as for the most advanced.

When a patient's problems are related to religious or moral conflict, the staff clergyman would be the most likely person for the patient to see because of his authority in this area and because he may be perceived by the patient to be the most appropriate person to deal with these problems.

There is for them only one God — he is holy, his land is holy, his nation is to be a holy people — and while the indiscriminate mixture of moral and ceremonial elements carries over old ideas even while it ventures into new ones, there is an evident elevation of the idea of holiness into terms of the divine majesty, and of the Most High's exclusive claim on man s devotion.

Your «emporer has no clothes» morals are not good enough for most people, or for the god you think you are speaking for.

The consequence has been the widespread relativism in most people's thinking about religion and morals in our society today.

While reading the English writer and theologian Samuel T. Coleridge, one of the most influential Christians in England and America, Bushnell was persuaded that religious truth was not grasped primarily by the mind but by the response of the whole person centering in the heart and moral nature.

I'm not going to define good and evil according to humans, since that would kill moral realism, and most Christians (most people, in fact) would not be willing to let that happen.

These preachers have already all violated Matthew 6:1 - 18 in their ostentatious and hypocritical piety, and they generally seem to pick and choose only the most hateful and bigoted things out of the Bible anyway, so it isn't like they really possess any moral authority preaching to people what they want to hear.

A rabbi once told me that this story about David was included in the Scriptures to make the point that even the most moral of persons can fall, the most powerful people have weaknesses, and no one, not even David, is perfect.

«Most people were poor by today's economic standards, but they were rich in moral values, family relations and social traditions.

Throughout most of Western history people have believed in some kind of moral order within which they made sense of their lives.

Most modern social and moral progress has been made by people free from religion — including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie, H. L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Luther Burbank and many others who have enriched humanity.

If people lived their lives in a simple moral way as indicated by the stories of most religious publications we would all live in a better world!

Most moral theologians today do not contest it, though it is a basis of the flagrant inequality in the incomes and resource distribution among peoples.

With the fall of the Roman empire, due to its internal moral laxity and external attacks by «Barbarians» from the North and East, the Church became the single most powerful agency for the formation and social stability of the European peoples.

It is people with wishy washy views and morals that we should fear most of all.

To be a «saint», in New Testament thinking, is not merely to be a moral person, although most of us have been led by inadequate teaching to assume that this is what is meant.

I realize it is very difficult to believe, with the morals that most people grow up with that any religion can be so violent and extreme, but, there are those who have warped the Muslim faith and that is a tragedy.

Later I did stop going to Church but also never joined a gang — moved on from that neighborhood FYI — If this all puzles u, even as an Atheist my morals are as strong and probably stronger than those of most religious people.

Now lets look at the things most worldly people as yourself want: No morals (only according to our own wills)..

The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, leaving it, like most subjects, to the judgment and moral sense of the American people and their elected representatives.

** In discussing abortion I will not address instances where most people, however they might ultimately decide the issue, would feel genuine moral anguish, cases, for example, where it is known that the child will be born with severe deformities.

He associates with them as a fellow human being touched with divine love for people as people, particularly for those in need, even more for those in moral and spiritual need, and most especially for the religiously self - righteous.

Most of the time, they've been so - called «values voters» who demanded that their leaders be people of faith, committed to traditional moral principles, and the kind of politicians who stand up for the 10 Commandments.

They reasoned that if the mind is filled with good ideas — like Bible stories and tales of moral virtue — most people will act accordingly.

I promise you, most of us are nice people with great morals!)

That is why I often suggest that the most determinative moral formation most people have in our society is when they learn to play baseball, basketball, quilt, cook or learn to lay bricks.

Most needed, given an analysis of this kind, is moral tutelage that encourages people to be less greedy (or to reassert traditional gender roles), not radical reform of the economic system itself.

Finally, once we realize that most FWTs do not claim that «God in fact deliberately creates conditions producing suffering in order to stimulate moral and spiritual qualities,» we see that there is no basis for maintaining that the affirmation of a free - will theodicy «could promote callousness» in the sense that it could cause FWTs «to belittle the importance of liberating persons from conditions producing suffering» (ER 19).

Intellectuals do not have better moral judgment than people with little or no education, they do not live more wisely, they are certainly not more compassionate, they have not fewer but different superstitions, and they are capable of the most mindless fanaticisms.