Not exact matches
Just as one can usually distinguish, according to their purposes, a good from a
bad saddle or a good from a
bad cavalry officer, so too the judgment of good and
bad in the ethical
sense should be eminently adjudicable if
moral behavior is goal - determined.
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.
With all the evidence, religious people ought to be intelligent design (I mean god - guided evolution by this) supporters at
worst, though I would hope that after some serious thoughts on the
moral paradoxes induced by belief
in the «divine» people would come to their
senses.
In this sense, one of the greatest present dangers to responsible moral discourse in social ethics is, I think, «moralism» and unrestrained idealism, which frequently operate to overcome these harsh realities I have described by attacking them — or worse, by simply ignoring the
In this
sense, one of the greatest present dangers to responsible
moral discourse
in social ethics is, I think, «moralism» and unrestrained idealism, which frequently operate to overcome these harsh realities I have described by attacking them — or worse, by simply ignoring the
in social ethics is, I think, «moralism» and unrestrained idealism, which frequently operate to overcome these harsh realities I have described by attacking them — or
worse, by simply ignoring them.
There is the tendency of our religiousness toward «moralism»
in the
bad sense, that is, toward a rigid and self - righteous judgment according to a
moral standard which we assume puts us
in a good light and others
in a
bad.
I don't bother with many other comment sections on the internet, so if she wants to explain to me how a complete lack of proof led her
in one of the
worst possible directions or how her lack of understanding of
morals and ethics lead her to choose the most criminal of religious cults to join..., then that would be great and I'm sure we could all enjoy picking apart her arguments for her «conversion» to those of us who know the difference between reason, logic, common
sense, and ethics and
morals and empathy and sympathy... as I would guess she doesn't give a crap anyway I doubt she'll show up here.
The characters
in Mean Creek aren't necessarily
bad... well, most of them... but they are forced to follow their own
sense of
morals, which only leads to tragic results.