Interesting read, I do not disagree. I must ask you one thing though, as a christian, what is it that Jesus proclaimed as the meaning of His message? Our purpose here on earth? Was that message " To love God with all that we are, and to serve others"
To that issue, I cannot square the first paragraph. In Gods eyes, I have to believe the author is sadly wrong on the first paragraph.
posted on 03/15/2003 5:08:22 AM PST
...and to serve others"
Glad you feel that way. I want breakfast in bed and I want it NOW!!
posted on 03/15/2003 5:46:44 AM PST
(Don't mess with Texans)
I suspect a strong case could be made that the Christian who follows God's directive IS acting in his or her own self interest. Consider that God says the alternative to accepting His Son's sacrifice is eternal damnation. I find that an easy choice to make, personally. So in doing the OTHER things, after that, I would be simply acting in my own (ETERNAL) self-interest. I am not, BTW, making this as a formal argument, merely in passing... HOWEVER, this can only hold true IF the Christian does it the way God SAID, which was to PERSONALLY do it. Nowhere in the relevant passages of the New Testament does God say to get laws passed in order to see His work done. Thus, I find those who advocate government to do THEIR work to be in direct contravention of Scripture.
Mother Theresa was doing God's work and following His orders because her ETERNAL self-interest required it. She did good work. BUT in the overall scheme of things, Mike Milliken was able to do MORE good by accident simply by following his temporal self-interest and creating opportunities for others who were able to achieve and cash in on filling HIS needs. I do not think the two areas come into conflict until or unless someone wants to interpose Government into the mix and have IT do the good the INDIVIDUAL is supposed to do. Which NEVER works and ALWAYS causes government to grow out of control.
posted on 03/15/2003 8:14:40 AM PST
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
"I have to believe the author is sadly wrong on the first paragraph." -exnavy-
Look at the point beyond the end of the first paragraph:
"Mother Teresa's name is synonymous with good deeds and humanitarian concern. In contrast, Michael Milken was a businessman, a financier. To comfort others, Mother Teresa sacrificed herself. Michael Milken did what he did only to make money for himself." [end 1st]
--- "Self-interested motives are so frowned onand other-regarding motives so admired that the typical pundit, politician, and pedestrian believes that motives are all that matter."
-- "Mother Teresa is admired because of her motives, not because of her results."
--- "Michael Milken and other business people are famous -- because of the huge benefits their goods and services bestow on millions of people around the world."
Thus, we should change our views on ~motives~ in regard to law & society... 'Good' motives [in particular those enforced by government decrees], can do more harm in the actuality of their enforcements than any possible results derived.
posted on 03/29/2003 10:12:35 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson