Sentences with phrase «there are moral people»

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.

Not exact matches

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.

The moral to the story is that these days there is no one single communication mechanism that captures everyone and there are different things that different people are attuned to listen out for (mostly subconsciously).

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

That's the real truth, and that's why people are fascinated by other ways which have remained less disturbed by the Gospel that really grips this society, which is that there should be no constraint on individual consumer choice in goods or morals.

There are also plenty of examples of people without a monotheistic religion that live or have lived peacefully in accordance with their own morals.

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.

Religious co-opted morality as it's dominion, but there was morality before religion and there are millions of perfectly moral, non-religious people walking around right now.

Case in point, it is not logical to suggest there is «good» vs «bad» if there is no ultimate moral authority, no higher power that created everything, including free will and the ability to choose whether to heed that drive to do what is «good» vs doing what you want to do at the expense of «good» and of other people.

Some people talk about morality like if it weren't for Christianity there would be no morals.

Observer, I would be the last person to say that there are no moral non-Christians, or that ALL Christians are highly moral.

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.

There is some behavior that some people find moral and others find immoral — abortion or the death penalty, for example.

There is mental, moral illness, where these people must treat psychology.

That there have «only» been 75 - 100 million people killed for religious reasons is hardly compelling evidence of God's power to produce moral followers.

There are only people raised by a different but equal moral code.

Actually there is a form of proof that people don't need the treat of heaven or the bribe of hell to be moral; the ancient mesopotamians did it just fine.

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».

In today's divided moral landscape, with thoughtful, well - meaning people on both sides of every issue, there's no better way to show that you're a serious thinker than by acknowledging that every controversial issue is «complex.»

They believe that there is a fundamental moral distinction to be drawn between a system that encourages people to be greedy and one that instead encourages them to acquire only what they truly need.

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.

Socialists believe that there is a fundamental moral distinction to be drawn between a system that encourages people to be greedy and one that instead encourages them to acquire only what they truly need.

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 devoThere 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 devothere 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.

I find, on the contrary, that it is much more difficult today for the knowing person to approach God from history, from the spiritual side of the world, and from morals; for there we encounter the suffering and evil in the world, which it is difficult to bring into harmony with an all «merciful and almighty God.

Similarly, while there may be some value in the refusal to take a moral stance on homosexuality — in order to focus squarely on the nature of marriage rather than on same - sex relationships — I am less than persuaded by the authors» moral judgment that people's sexual relationships are a private issue.

An act has positive moral value when it is based upon the whole - hearted assent of the person to it, that is, when there is a congruent relation between the act and the total personality structure of the one who acts.

He'd rather believe in God while living on earth, being a good and moral person then die and found out there was no God, than to not believe there is a God, do whatever he pleased, to die and find out there is a God.

There are still plenty of people around who would like to argue that a moral code can be discerned from nature, but the modernist understanding of nature undermines their efforts.

There can be nothing in there to enlighten, to educate or bring people to any understanding of what is good and mThere can be nothing in there to enlighten, to educate or bring people to any understanding of what is good and mthere to enlighten, to educate or bring people to any understanding of what is good and moral.

I can tell you that there is a lot in the Quran to enlighten, educate and bring people to ALL understanding of what is good and moral.

In the first instance, there are those who argue that since all persons have a fundamental spiritual or moral equality, then that equality ought to extend to all social, economic and political relationships in which they find themselves.

The committed Christian is one about whom there is no doubt concerning which side he will be on in a clear - cut moral issue or how he will meet a moral crisis that might shake another person from his moorings.

Jeremy thanks for your comments alot of this i never really thought about before until you provoked me to seek the truth in the word it is what we all should be doing finding the truth for ourselves God wants to reveal mysterys if we are open to hear.If we have been christians awhile we just take the word of whoevers preaching or whichever clip we see on god tube its knowledge but not revelation.Because the story sounds plausible we tag that on to our belief for example for many years i believed that the rich young rulers problem was money so the way to deal with that problem is to give it away and be a follower of Jesus sounds plausible.Till you realise every believers situation is different so the message has to be universal.So the reason its not about money because it excludes those that do nt have it and does nt make room for those that do have it but do nt worship it.The rich young ruler was not a bad person he lived by a good moral code but he made money his idol he put that before God.The word says we shall not have any idols thats a sin and a wicked one.In fact there wasnt any room in his heart for Jesus that is a tragedy.So when we see the message is about Idolatry we all have areas that we chose not to submit to God thats universal everyone of us whether we are rich or poor.I believe we are unaware that we have these idols what are some of them that was revealed to me our partners our children our work our church our family i can sense some of you are getting fidgetty.

Just as there is no moral quality in the fact that persons are born male or female, so these other human differences are facts.

There are many questions about the Christian god that many people simply ignore, mainly because it makes sense to question, and when force to face the reality that there can be morals, goodness, peace, right and wrong, and so on, WITHOUT the ChristianThere are many questions about the Christian god that many people simply ignore, mainly because it makes sense to question, and when force to face the reality that there can be morals, goodness, peace, right and wrong, and so on, WITHOUT the Christianthere can be morals, goodness, peace, right and wrong, and so on, WITHOUT the Christian god.

By the way by no means does this mean that I am particularly against Islam, I am also against Judaism, Christianity, and any unproven dark age manifestation of a all knowing, creator, If there was a god he sure does «nt need help enforcing his edicts and morals, remember that if there is a god then as many religions state, people will be judged upon there beliefs and sins after death and spend eternity in heaven or hell, so why is it so important for people to butt in and start trying to control each other and force people to believe in something that many think is absurd and insane.

There was no evidence of its coming, of the kind that people had imagined; no vast revolution in human affairs, no cataclysm, not even a sudden and far - reaching moral reformation.

There is no requirement to be a moral person.

Since there is so much evidence of the moral decay that follows a loss of theistic conviction and so little evidence of the maintenance of civilization apart from this conviction, the burden of proof is on the person who answers Meiklejohn's question in the affirmative.

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.

Young people in particular often visualize their moral problem in some such way as this: on the one side is the ideal life with its purity, its self - forgetfulness, its fine awareness of things invisible, and on the other side are the primitive instincts — pugnacity, egotism, sensuality, the caveman within, and between these two there is an irreconcilable hostility.

The linchpin of Professor Rawls» criticism of the «rationalist believers» was his claim that they deny what he called «the fact of reasonable pluralism,» namely, in circumstances of political and religious freedom it is to be expected that there will emerge serious differences of opinion among reasonable people on important moral and theological questions.

The second error is to suppose that there is no right (or rationally superior) answer to important moral questions on which people disagree, or that the right answer can only be known by blind faith, not by reason.

The Second Vatican Council, in insisting in the document on Ecumenism that there can be no change or concession within the Church Catholic in matters of doctrine of faith and morals, has equivalently informed us in the name of the Holy Spirit, that it is the will of God to give to His Church and to His people who «seek Him with a sincere heart» just such new knowledge, new vision, and new unity.

There can be moral maturing through tragic experience bath for individuals and for whale peoples.

But it has been said on these blogs that there are people of different beliefs who are all moral people.

But the fact that the land was originally acquired by force was erased from the minds of the biblical writers because of the deeply moral and spiritual heritage which the people of Israel developed there.

on that premise there is an increasing number of people who question «dominion over all the beasts» on «moral» grounds, and I'm not just talking about vegans.

It must be admitted that there are certain potential vices to virtue ethics even in its minimalist mode, i.e., even when it does not try to crowd out the legitimate insights of deontologists and utilitarians (e.g., from the deontological side, that there are limits — deontoi — regarding what any virtuous person can be permitted to do, and, from the utilitarian side, that there are calculations which are relevant regarding many moral decisions the virtuous person must make).

Happy Jack — I didn't say there was a set of established morals for Atheists, in fact i noted that there was NOT a set of morals, if you want to know if Atheists have morals and where they come from you'd probably have to ask an atheist, my post was simply pointing to the fact that the dictators i was talking about did not have a specific set of morals telling them that Murdering millions of people was wrong.