It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Take for instance the three examples I mentioned, those of Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King. All are known around the world for causing much positive change, for doing acts that, more often than not, required much personal sacrifice, however, all three of these people were leaders with many followers. It was exactly this power that they wielded over their followers that gave them the ability to affect such wide ranging and memorable positive change. If these people had adhered to the popular notion of total self sacrifice, of self denial and working only for the benefit of others they would never have risen to the position they had. Part of what I am proposing is that having one's own gain and the betterment of one's own earthly position as one of their primary goals is not necessarily evil in any way.
It is true that you will find more happiness in loved ones and true friends than you will in material things alone but why is it that we, as a society, feel that we can not have both? Can someone not be concerned with material wealth and success and also have deep meaningful relationships with other people? Why is it that we feel we must chose one or the other, that the two are mutually exclusive?
What I am advocating, in a sense, is simply realism and self honesty. There are certain situations where blunt and brutal honesty can ruin a relationship with someone else quicker than greed or selfishness. This idea can be portrayed by as simple an example as a friend showing you artwork they have done and asking for your opinion. You know they have spent much time and effort on it, you know they have a large emotional investment in it, but what if you honestly don't think it's very good? Telling the honest truth would show total disregard for the friend's emotions and would betray your own lack of empathy and your callousness towards them.
This idea can be further shown by the evangelist in his large church full of followers. Leaders of mega churches no doubt benefit from their congregation, they gain prestige, power and wealth. Some may see them as charlatans or as con men but their followers do not. If you watch the congregation they are feeling extreme joy and love, they are getting the spiritual fulfillment they so greatly desire. These feelings motivate them, it drives them to be better people and to help others, it inspires them to seek higher spiritual fulfillment. When the leader then passes the collection plates around the congregation gladly donate their money, some churches even go as far as to collect 10% of each member's income. This obviously benefits both the leaders and the organization they have established, they have nice clothes, nice cars, they live in nice houses but have they committed any evil to attain these things? Have they hurt anyone in order to attain these things? I would offer the proposition that they have attained their success by making people happy, by giving them what they so desperately desire and by motivating large numbers of people to the attainment of higher and more "virtuous" goals.
I do not feel that one must exclude earthly and material success from personal and intangible fulfillment. I think that one can have both but that one must play by the rules of the world if they want to achieve certain kinds of success. The means to material success and power, if you so desire them, are not by way of supposed virtues and are, generally, contrary to established thought and the philosophy of society and religion.
No one has ever risen to the top solely by putting others before themselves, however, those at the top are in the best position to cause positive change for the greatest number of people. Good and evil lie within the individual and does not necessarily have anything to do with the way of life, their goals or their position in society. You can make others happy, you can make them like you, even love you in many ways and still be working towards your own personal gain and success.
As matter of fact, it mostly occur these people crossing the line and take you for something in a wrong way are women. They always want to show they can do anything they want but they can't, they lack spiritual respect. Women a' stupid. Crude in all ways.
Originally posted by ldyserenity
Originally posted by BombDefined
As I have been saying for a while now, human evolution is no longer 'survival of the fittest', but 'survival of the ruthless'edit on 29/12/2010 by BombDefined because: (no reason given)
You forgot, mean-spirited, spiritless, sociopaths.
Because everything in the OP is exactly a sociopath. Look it up, the main thing a sociopath is well versed in is seeming ethical and virtuous while being selfish, self-serving and downright evil.
Originally posted by Shadowflux
You may try to be as Christ like as you wish, you may try to give of yourself in every way but the majority of people will only take from you, they will consume your time and your energy and leave you worn out with nothing but the idea that you will receive satisfaction once your life is over. I have studied many religions, including the occult, for a long time and if I can say one thing for certain it is that no one can know the nature of the divine, no one can know what happens after life and no one can presume to understand the workings of the universe, all this must be taken on faith alone. It is this faith, instilled in people by gurus, preachers, politicians and philosophers that "good people" will operate on. We are told that denying ourselves, working for the good of others, acting contrary to our nature is not something to be understood but something to be done without question.
The concept that "truly good people" expect no reward and no return is both a fallacy and contrary to human nature. When you do good for others, whether it be something complex or something as simple as giving food to a hungry man, we naturally expect some sort of return even if it is as simple as expecting gratitude from those we have helped. We are told that we should be "good people" because we will receive spiritual rewards, enlightenment, spiritual growth or acceptance into heaven to name but a few. I would put forth the idea that people feel they should be good because of fear of retribution and the expectation of immaterial reward. We must be realistic and realism requires that we admit that no person is one sided, people are very complex and no one is a faerie tale hero with only good in their hearts and minds.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Shadowflux
In fact, part of my own business model is going to involve giving 50% of all proceeds of all after expense sales to clean water in the third world, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's a great business idea, which is sure to pull in many many more customers and dispell or break down any hesitancy they might have had in going ahead and becoming a customer. I'm even going to make free stuff available to suck them in.
But you see, having placed my heart first on God's kingdom of love, I can do all of this
edit on 31-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by etherical waterwave
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
Always like reason, I.
some are born with natural yet negative inclinations. People are born with a propensity to violence, to sexual deviancy, to addiction, to many other negative "natures"