Sentences with phrase «what being a moral person»

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.

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.

«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.»

Use the bible for what it was intended, moral stories of how people should act, although current societal norms would certainly preclude stoning and other current justice and civil rights departures from the rigid teachings / interpretations of the bible.

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

Seems to be all a bit weird that this is what it takes to make a religious person be a moral one.

And that's what it is... people are scared that homosexuality is going to * harm * them and their children... that it is going to «destroy the moral fabric of their nation» or «ruin the familial institution».

John Beyond the Golden Rule, which is something that was already pretty universal and predates the Bible by hundreds of years, what moral advice the Bible gives is hopelessly outdated, and it's message of a preferred people, be they Jew or Christian, is really rather elitist.

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.

Each person is free to believe what they want to believe, but morals and religion are completely intertwined.

If you would ask any atheist what their moral system is, the answer always comes back as «I don't do to other people, what I would not want done to me».

not faith in his existence) IM not going to base my whole life on science like some people do... science will fait... science does not say what Is moral and what is... so science can not be everythiIs moral and what is... so science can not be everythiis... so science can not be everything

Trying to be someone else and trying to live up to expectations put on you by a Pastor or church moral police is what leads people to sneak to do things and feel guilty about doing the things that make them happy.

Nobody knows exactly what those morals are but you are definitely a moral person.

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.

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.

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.

I am a good person and my morals are centered on the idea that I do unto others what I wish them to do unto me.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am assuming that we can appropriate this principle from Kant's moral theory without assuming the rest of it as true, including his restricted view of what a person is.

People of integrity can disagree on precisely what policies are best, or are attainable, with respect to clearly moral questions in medicine and genetics.

@Dunk... yeah right I'll get it out, when my money doesn't get used by people like you... You are pretty lame to think that you would have no morals if you didn't read what you should do.

The idols of moral people are not usually what we would consider evils; but a good for which we have an inordinate love, something intrinsically good that we love more that God.

People continue to not understand what beliefs and standards are and I've never heard him preach moral standards, atonement of Christ etc..

In so doing we lose sight of what the things themselves really are qua things — and «things» here includes people, objects, ideas, moral codes, literally everything.

what upsets people is what i DO N'T do: such as lead in a particular way, teach with authority, be more charismatic, not setting a higher moral standard, stuff like that... it's not about what i or we DO as a community.

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.

What we have here is a proposal that a small handful of learned people, presumably including Mr. Wieseltier, will serve as the custodians of the moral theory and sources of democratic governance.

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.

What's compelling this time is the Republican choice of a person with no morals at all.

Instead of simply stating the law and reacting in panic when it is widely broken, those concerned for traditional moral wisdom would do much better to affirm the high possibility of the life of faithful love, and to understand with love what is happening to people in ghettoes, in college campuses, in the life of the family today.

What I would like to see from the Mosque's Imam is a public, unequivocal statement that he does not tolerate violent teachings or attacks against Americans and issues a Fatwa forbidding any moral, monetary or logistical support for people planning or contemplating jihadist violence.

Because of this, at least, the physician is also a moral person, the subject of an ethical imperative addressed to him, no matter to what he attributes this absolute principle.

What's more, by writing persuasive articles about people's moral obligation to give away money, Singer has caused tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to be donated to famine relief organizations.

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.

He seems obsessed with the idea that because people don't all agree with him on issues such as gay marriage that it is essential we all look to the bible to figure out what's ethical and moral, and all assume that it is the final word on what's right or wrong.

The problem may not be with rights per se, whose articulation is invaluable to our conception of modern republicanism (and may even help more fully articulate what is true about Christian morality), but with an interpretation that takes rights as the whole of moral discourse and therefore, understands the abstract Lockean individual to be a comprehensive account of the human person.

If tomorrow we heard (what of course we will not hear) that real peace had come to Southeast Asia, that a new government had emerged representing all the people, that the United States was prepared to give billions through international channels to rebuild what our tens of billions have destroyed — if we heard all that, I would rejoice because of the relief from moral anguish I would feel privately and inwardly, and because of the renewed possibility of pride in being an American.

And they had to answer practical moral questions, because the people who were abandoning their old gods needed to know what the new God demanded.

Who that person is and what he or she may think about religion are thus weighty questions, not just for science and the academy, but also for communities of belief, and indeed, the entire moral and spiritual fabric of our culture.

There can be nothing in there 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.

And, as Smith notes, a problem with mere prudentialism is that its adoption is imprudent «because if people realize that the point of «morality» is really to get what we want, then people will lose their incentive to respect the moral - prudential imperatives that prudence itself imposes whenever those imperatives seem to impede us from getting what we want.»

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.

Modernism at other times is downright scary: how can we persuade other people that what they want to do to us is barred by some unchallengeable moral absolute?

No, what American Catholics are happy about, or should be, is that the pope is bringing Christianity into the dialogue with secularism in a way that doesn't alienate the people he would like to introduce to Christ via grace and mercy AND that he is doing so while maintaining the firm teachings the Church holds on moral matters.