|
|
Post by dlectronic on May 9, 2010 15:36:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on May 10, 2010 17:29:16 GMT -5
It's interesting, but the order should still be 1. Mother Thereasa 2. Bill Gates 3. Norman Borlaug The reason for this is because Mother Thereasa gave more than either of the other two. She gave everything she had to help others. The fact that others accomplished more means nothing in the face of that detail. Second comes Gates. He gives away sizable portions of his pay every year to charities, however he does not gain much recognition for this. He reaps the rewards for his actions outside of the public eye, and does not covet the attention associated with doing right. Finally we have Norman Borlaug. Although he has possibly saved millions of lives, it was on a patent he created, and he has enjoyed positive accolades worldwide for his service. He profited from his philanthropy (unlike Gates and Thereasa), and he received public recognition for it. It is undeterminable whether he would have done what Gates did (do philanthropy that doesn't generate positive attention for himself) or what Mother Thereasa did (leave welath and all worldly possessions to tend to the ill). Edit: Spelling |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 10, 2010 19:10:29 GMT -5
They are all admirable in my eyes. They each have used their lives to do good for people. It's irrelevant to me who profited more than the other. I would be happy if each one of them were multi-billionaires. More good to Borlaug if he saved millions of lives with a patent he created. Only God knows who is the "better person." That is not for people to know. What matters to me as a fellow human who cannot know their hearts is that they each did their part to make at least a few peoples' lives better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on May 12, 2010 13:21:11 GMT -5
They are all admirable in my eyes. They each have used their lives to do good for people. It's irrelevant to me who profited more than the other. I would be happy if each one of them were multi-billionaires. More good to Borlaug if he saved millions of lives with a patent he created. Only God knows who is the "better person." That is not for people to know. What matters to me as a fellow human who cannot know their hearts is that they each did their part to make at least a few peoples' lives better. I can't help but feel Jesus disagrees. Blessed above the extravagant donors was the widow who gave two-pence. The two-pence was all she had. |
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on May 14, 2010 3:48:49 GMT -5
Ha, I wonder what will happen if in say, 10 years, scientists are claiming with confidence that morality is indeed a sense, just like taste and smell.
In other words, what will happen to the age old question, "Where does morality stem from?" This long-discussed question still keeps me involved in active discussion/debate with atheist friends at school and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 14, 2010 10:10:04 GMT -5
What if some people have a "morality gene" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 14, 2010 20:55:42 GMT -5
They are all admirable in my eyes. They each have used their lives to do good for people. It's irrelevant to me who profited more than the other. I would be happy if each one of them were multi-billionaires. More good to Borlaug if he saved millions of lives with a patent he created. Only God knows who is the "better person." That is not for people to know. What matters to me as a fellow human who cannot know their hearts is that they each did their part to make at least a few peoples' lives better. I can't help but feel Jesus disagrees. Blessed above the extravagant donors was the widow who gave two-pence. The two-pence was all she had. Fine. I'm not Jesus though. It is not for me to judge whose heart was evil and whose heart was good. That teaching was not meant to give us reason to judge others, but to show us what God wants us to give: our everything. This is a scripture to take personally and apply to one's own conduct. |
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on May 15, 2010 4:41:31 GMT -5
I've thought that morality is a lot like this thing called our "conscience"
It's just things we were raised to believe that were right and wrong to whoever raised us.
A lot of things about morality have to do with common sense. They are actions that make life easier, and they keep relationships stronger. Christian morality simply includes God into the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on May 15, 2010 14:21:03 GMT -5
A lot of things about morality have to do with common sense. They are actions that make life easier, and they keep relationships stronger. Christian morality simply includes God into the equation. I believe that God's role in "morality" is not as minimal as you say. I oftentimes do not see it as a common sense thing. If God is not, than why should I care if that person eats food or not and waste money helping them out? Why should I bother "respecting" women when I can exploit them and derive pleasure from them for my gain only? If God isn't, why would I ever try to inconvenience myself with this "morality" nonsense? Some might claim morality originates from our desire to better mankind, or to further evolve the human race. This judgement is too hasty, however, because I could still ask, why bother bettering mankind? To "better mankind" is a moral judgement in itself. / my two cents |
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on May 15, 2010 14:32:28 GMT -5
I believe that God's role in "morality" is not as minimal as you say. I oftentimes do not see it as a common sense thing. If God is not, than why should I care if that person eats food or not and waste money helping them out? Why should I bother "respecting" women when I can exploit them and derive pleasure from them for my gain only? If God isn't, why would I ever try to inconvenience myself with this "morality" nonsense? Some might claim morality originates from our desire to better mankind, or to further evolve the human race. This judgement is too hasty, however, because I could still ask, why bother bettering mankind? To "better mankind" is a moral judgement in itself. / my two cents Using the Bible as a guide for morality is fine. But when you put your faith in something as proofless as God, and believe things from a book that is free to interpretation (and also has no proof that it is of God in the first place), then why should others follow the same code? You don't need God to be nice. If you are seeking morality, all you need to do is find out what people need, what they find pleasant, and benefit them in that way. Biblical morality includes conduct towards God, such as prayer, obeying his authority, giving praise to him, and so on. They have nothing to do our conduct with others, but they are considered moral. |
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on May 15, 2010 16:01:19 GMT -5
You didn't touch my points at all it seems. Why bother with morality without divinity? It seems to me a practice bankrupt of any reason and reward, for that matter. On the contrary, it seems to more draining than anything.
But that set aside, you opened up an interesting can of worms. Off topic, but definitely good to discuss. You say the Bible "has no proof that it is of God in the first place"? I think that is almost to be discounted as not serious. Why wouldn't an archeologist tell us that this collection of books does not entail "God".
Am I misinterpreting your words?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 15, 2010 16:12:10 GMT -5
*agrees with dlectronic's thoughts on morality*
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 15, 2010 16:28:15 GMT -5
Using the Bible as a guide for morality is fine. But when you put your faith in something as proofless as God, and believe things from a book that is free to interpretation (and also has no proof that it is of God in the first place), then why should others follow the same code? You don't need God to be nice. If you are seeking morality, all you need to do is find out what people need, what they find pleasant, and benefit them in that way. Biblical morality includes conduct towards God, such as prayer, obeying his authority, giving praise to him, and so on. They have nothing to do our conduct with others, but they are considered moral. All I can personally say is that I follow a Biblical code because it works best for me and makes the most sense for my life. I happen to agree with the Bible that everyone needs it, but I cannot be 100% certain of that. Perhaps others have a better code than I, and I keep my mind open to that possibility if they can provide better reason. My faith comes partially from my upbringing, but mostly from trial and error because I have tried to slowly give up Christianity on a few different occasions, but I have always been most satisfied with Christ in the center of my life. So far in life I have rarely evangelized unless someone who knows and trusts me is searching for God or for meaning in life or is in a tragedy. In those cases, I simply share how my faith has been helpful to me and might prove useful to them. Why I believe others should follow a Biblical code is because the scriptures give objective standards on what morality is. It gives us good reason to treat each person in a decent way no matter how we feel about them. Without good objective standards on personal ethics, they are reduced to mere feelings, and such things often result in immense kindness to certain people while justifying cruelty toward others. People need objective standards in order to act good and just to everybody no matter who they are. You are right about the Bible containing standards on how to act toward God. Just like people need an objective law, we also need an objective lawgiver. We also need a deeply personal God who cares about us so much so that he has the very hairs on our heads numbered. Just like a child needs his parents to properly raise him, much more so people need the Lord to properly train them. |
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on May 16, 2010 15:57:01 GMT -5
You didn't touch my points at all it seems. Why bother with morality without divinity? It seems to me a practice bankrupt of any reason and reward, for that matter. On the contrary, it seems to more draining than anything. But that set aside, you opened up an interesting can of worms. Off topic, but definitely good to discuss. You say the Bible "has no proof that it is of God in the first place"? I think that is almost to be discounted as not serious. Why wouldn't an archeologist tell us that this collection of books does not entail "God". Am I misinterpreting your words? I didn't really understand the question you posed. Why bother with morality without divinity? Morality is a standard. Divinity is an obscure idea of what is "Godlike" Both can be very diverse depending on who you ask, and what religion you examine. How a religion connects the two is obvious, but what makes it truth is not. What I said in my 2nd paragraph is why I believe God isn't necessary for morality. I don't know of a plainer way to say it. Not following the logic on why you think there is proof that God has anything to do with scriptures written by men. Could we discuss that via PM or something? I don't want to spam with off topic ideas. |
|
