What does it mean to be a better person?

[Samael_Khan]

Morality is centered on what is reliable and what is trustworthy. To break trustworthiness is to be immoral. To be trustworthy is moral.

People of vices can not be trusted. People of virtues will operate in good faith according to their virtues.

By giving up on vices and evils what is there to lose. Vices and evils try to seem good and glorious but are rotten to the core.

Fulfillment rests with virtue, all else is void and empty.

I always ask to myself where a person's loyalty lies. Would they do good to everybody as they deserve insomuch as that deserve is perceivable? Or would they violate deserve itself for the immediate gain or have? Do they honor the faithfulness of else and other relationships, or do they wish to weaken and expose that which is honorable for something it is not?

A worthwhile relationship is freely and willfully entered into and the reasons are honest.

Evil exposed and not sugar coated is a very ugly thing. Evil seeks an enemy to destroy for its own purposes. Goodness seeks a friend to see heart to heart with. That to me is the most basic morality there is that I found.

Without some trust there is no society. And if people don't protect that trust things fall apart. The only reward worthy of having is with honesty.

Very thought provoking.

 

[Samael_Khan]

click on the text, it'll show you.


allahu akbar a slave to love, or servant of god. he who wishes to be greatest must be a servant to love, i am that i am

Well that was glaringly obvious and I didn't even see that it was a link.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The standard model human, regardless of nation, comes with a built-in moral kit ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. Other parts of the kit are mirror neurons for empathy, and a conscience (the sense that some rules of how to act aren't just a personal view but have universal application).

So I'd say that in there somewhere is the foundation for being a good person ─ along with good manners, of course.

Would you say that there is also a possible that something we view as immoral today is in that kit?

 

[Samael_Khan]

If you are a person who loves your family and try to always act to help others and yourself in a positive way, you are a moral person.
If you do not harm others and treat other life and yourself with compassion you are a moral person.
If you carefully consider your actions and the outcomes before acting in an effort to do no harm, you are a better person.

Don't do to others what you would not want done to you and if it takes a life time of trying, as long you keep trying you will be a better person.

No gods are required. And certainly not religions which often are hypocritical about the morals presented within them. I would say that is not a good source to look to if you are seeking to be a better person.

Regarding "do not harm others" as a trait of a moral person: Would self defense and execution of justice be immoral because it harms others?

 

[Samael_Khan]

ha...caught you

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
it is written

but the standard is not written anywhere but within you
you are the standard
you are your book of life

so then....back to scripture.....
the kingdom of heaven is within you

I believe we end up alongside others that think and feel as we do

How else to be happy?
How else to be fair?

and you will KNOW the better person you have become
by the likeness you find yourself surrounded

"Birds of a feather flock together"

I never thought of gauging who I am as a person by who I hang out with. Very good insight on your part.

 

[Samael_Khan]

this part I agree with

but it unravels the dogmatic practice

OH YEAH!

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Fool]

Well that was glaringly obvious and I didn't even see that it was a link.

if you prefer, there is this

 

[Samael_Khan]

The whole problem with society, is that it has by and large turned away from God. In doing so, society has lost its moral compass. Who then is the judge of what is right and wrong? What was once evil is now called good, and what was once good is now evil. God made the whole universe and everything in it, including me and you. He knows what is right and wrong, because He does all things perfectly. Without a moral compass, it is like trying to build a house without a foundation. Eventually it will crumble. Like Sodom and Gomorrah, the mighty Roman Empire. Empires come and go as long as man thinks he is his own master. Certainty for eternity

What is interesting is that a few of us in this thread have actually detected that we do have a moral compass to guide us independent of God. We can tell what is the baseline morality for most people by actually observing human behaviour. We are social creatures therefore our morality revolves around what supports the benefit of community.

I am of the viewpoint that we can use religion to gauge how man has evolved in morality. So later religions tend to be more moral (from our standpoint) as a whole than earlier ones, while dangerous fringe cults get judged as immoral. Even religions such as Christianity reveal that followers interpret the text based on their current morality. So I would say that Jesus was ahead of his time morally. The church took a while to catch up with him gradually interpreting the text in a more moral way as time went by. So for instance the bible used to be used as an excuse to wage wars and enslave people whereas these days it is used to refute those practices.

As for God being a moral compass, and you being a Christian, do you then think it was moral for God to command that his people do the below:

1 Samuel 15:2–3
Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

Also could you please show how society has degenerated morally because they have turned away from God compared to how society was more moral when it turned towards God?

 

[Samael_Khan]

If a man consume lots of alcohol and beats his wife and children, yells at them, ranting and raving then no will see him as being a good person. But if he stops drinking and refrains from anger, sees the good in his family and is kind and respectful then most will agree he is on my way to being a better person.



Sometimes changes are clear to others and ourselves, other times more subtle.



To be moral is to try to become the best we can be. We all have an innate capacity for good. If religion better enables us to become better people and make clear our purpose then we should follow that religion. If religion make us worse and we become hateful and estranged from others then best we don’t have that religion.

It is my belief we each have the capacity to know and worship God but that is hard prove. The best proof is if I live it and become an example of the change we wish to see in the world.



What works for one person may not for another. If no religion make us better then have no religion. I made my choice long ago and have no need to impose my choice on others. I could prove the principles of a number of faiths as being good moral guides. Often it is as simple as love, truth and compassion.

I agree with you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The OP's issue is meaning, ie, what does it mean to be a better person. I don't believe this topic can be construed as an exclusivity lodged in rational comparisons and moral constructs based on culturally derived protocol. After all, human being is inconceivable.

There is a point to baseline societal injunctions and moral imperatives, and each societally derived system is unique, yet vaguely universal. But the point isn't what makes a better person, it is what does it mean to be a better person.

Certainly, there is an overwhelming constituent on these forums based on a ratio-syncretic formality void of nonpsychological experience. It is the nonpsychological which is universal, in terms of unity. In the parlance of buddhism, the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die is the point of departure into the nexus of sameness within difference, which is not unity per se. But before I lose the reader at this point, I will hasten to add that any "better" person has already grasped the fact that accepting "sameness within difference" isn't the person. That's right— ego doesn't do that (not without logically claiming credit to some god-like selflessness, or else incurring second-guesses to that effect). It's not ego's fault because that's ego's function. In not using ego to deal with the world habitually (and unskillfully), one discovers that it's not the person, it's just one's inherent essential nature, discovered for the first time. The meaning of sameness within difference is only in its application. It's not a thing. It's not a pan-human sentiment based on people at all. It's people's inherent nonpsychological capacity that constitutes undifferentiated unity underlying the spiritual ramifications of actually applying the power of mutually responsive sameness within difference.

This isn't buddhism or taoism, sufism or anything derivative of religious nomenclature. It's not philosophy. It's just a description of reality befitting the capacity of real human being— which isn't limited to rational liturgical references or virtually beginningless social systems of behavioral engineering.

The import of all authentic teaching, is not so much in bridging the so-called gap between difference and unity, but in actually seeing undifferentiated unity itself in the midst of delusional existence (existence IS delusion). One who does so in everyday ordinary affairs would be an expression of what it means to be a better person, in terms of enlightening practice.

Which is, to say the least, a matter of self-refining practice. And to transcend rote morality and even psychological capacities, such self-refining practice can be said to be endless. How else would one come to ascend to heaven in broad daylight?

The meaning of a better person might be termed an inconceivability of itself. The meaning of which is not only beyond words, but the power of such meaning can take one beyond the word itself, to its source.



ed note: typo in 3rd paragraph

When I asked wrote the OP, both what and meaning were intended. Because I think that both are linked or at least one motivates the other.

To be honest I am finding it difficult to comprehend what you are saying because I think that you are approaching from a perspective that I know nothing about. Is it religious, ideological or philosophical? And could you help me understand your worldview?

I certainly do not understand what non psychological means and why it impacts the discussion.

You probably would have to dumb things down for me

 

[Samael_Khan]

if you prefer, there is this

Awesome! Thanks!

i did read up on Conference of Birds. I am a reader of classic literature, such as gothic horror, epic poems and such things so I will definitely read the book.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's interesting. So as I read through the Bible, I got a completely different understanding than what I was taught I should have. Of course just about every Christian I discussed the Bible with has a different interpretation of it so I figured why should any have any consideration for my own understanding of the Bible.

Kind of gave up dealing with it as most are certain that their own interpretation is the only correct view of God.

When it comes to the Bible, I am not so concerned with correctness as I am fascinated about the discussions about what is the correct interpretation. It is like a mental exercise for me and the fact that I will never find the actual answer makes the fascination endless.

Also, reading a religious book is like studying a a profession like archaeology. One has to look at the historical research behind it and really go indepth to understand terms used and the importance of certain imagery. We cannot interact with it satisfyingly without knowing its original context.

Even more so I treat it as any other piece of literature I read, such as Frankenstein, Lord of the Rings and Paradise Lost. It is a product of creativity and the authors express themselves through the book provoking thought. For instance Ecclesiastes is one of the books I resonate with most in the world.

I also read the 1611 King James because even though it is a translation of other texts, I personally think that it is one of the masterpieces of English literature, same as Shakespeare and Paradise Lost. It is written beautifully.

 

[InChrist]

From all perspectives, whether theological or not, what does it mean to be a better person?

By this I mean, how do we know that we are progressing or digressing as human beings morally?

And, how do we define morality? Is it merely a social construct or is there an innate morality in humans that we are progressively discovering through religion and debate? Is it maybe something implanted in us by God?

But, be warned, if someone says that we must obey a certain morality that a God defines through a Holy Book just because the Holy Book says so, that someone has to first prove that their Holy Book is undoubtedly sent down by God. Because, if we are to follow something a book says just because it says so, then we have to prove that that book has validity.

So it would be best to prove the logical reason why a said religions morality is correct and should be followed by not appealing to the religion itself.

I think as humans with our many different perspectives we come up with a wide variety of ideas about what makes a better person, which is pretty arbitrary. I believe only the Creator God’s view , as revealed in the Bible, gives an accurate assessment concerning human nature.

 

[stvdv]

From all perspectives, whether theological or not, what does it mean to be a better person?

By this I mean, how do we know that we are progressing or digressing as human beings morally?

I start with animals. Which animal is a better animal? TigerCat or PussyCat?
Some on RF strongly claimed that humans are just animals.
IF true then can we talk about "better" animal (human)?

Pussycat can sleep in my bed
Tigercat NOT

I don't call the Tigercat "better" then Pussycat though.
It's more, that I like to be in control when it comes to having others in my bed.
At least the control of not being eaten while asleep (or worse awake)

 

[blü 2]

Would you say that there is also a possible that something we view as immoral today is in that kit?

Well, the instincts we have support our ability to live together in cooperative tribes, and they work as tendencies that will vary in strength from person to person. Further, you may have come across the not unpersuasive hypothesis that psychopaths have no, or too few, mirror neurons; and the observation that the Venn diagram for success in business and psychopathy often shows substantial overlap.

Within one's tribe, one's place in the peck order is highly relevant to one's chances of surviving and breeding, so we have to compete with our peers as well as with other tribes. So we also come with the built-in capacity for anger, envy / jealousy is built in, and sex/lust is an imperative.

So, as someone once said, it's complicated.

 

[Heyo]

Well, the instincts we have support our ability to live together in cooperative tribes, and they work as tendencies that will vary in strength from person to person. Further, you may have come across the not unpersuasive hypothesis that psychopaths have no, or too few, mirror neurons; and the observation that the Venn diagram for success in business and psychopathy often shows substantial overlap.

Within one's tribe, one's place in the peck order is highly relevant to one's chances of surviving and breeding, so we have to compete with our peers as well as with other tribes. So we also come with the built-in capacity for anger, envy / jealousy is built in, and sex/lust is an imperative.

So, as someone once said, it's complicated.

"...mirror neurons are an exciting, intriguing discovery – but when you see them mentioned in the media, remember that most of the research on these cells has been conducted in monkeys. Remember too that there are many different types of mirror neuron. And that we're still trying to establish for sure whether they exist in humans, and how they compare with the monkey versions. As for understanding the functional significance of these cells … don't be fooled: that journey has only just begun.[16]" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

 

[stvdv]

Further, you may have come across the not unpersuasive hypothesis that psychopaths have no, or too few, mirror neurons; and the observation that the Venn diagram for success in business and psychopathy often shows substantial overlap.

Does make sense, you must be a "killer" to be successful (making millions) in business (they have even an expression "kill the deal").
And you must have ambition to be in control of others too. I have totally not that ambition. So lucky me, I am not a psychopath

 

[osgart]

What is interesting is that a few of us in this thread have actually detected that we do have a moral compass to guide us independent of God. We can tell what is the baseline morality for most people by actually observing human behaviour. We are social creatures therefore our morality revolves around what supports the benefit of community.

I am of the viewpoint that we can use religion to gauge how man has evolved in morality. So later religions tend to be more moral (from our standpoint) as a whole than earlier ones, while dangerous fringe cults get judged as immoral. Even religions such as Christianity reveal that followers interpret the text based on their current morality. So I would say that Jesus was ahead of his time morally. The church took a while to catch up with him gradually interpreting the text in a more moral way as time went by. So for instance the bible used to be used as an excuse to wage wars and enslave people whereas these days it is used to refute those practices.

As for God being a moral compass, and you being a Christian, do you then think it was moral for God to command that his people do the below:

1 Samuel 15:2–3
Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

Also could you please show how society has degenerated morally because they have turned away from God compared to how society was more moral when it turned towards God?

Imo, humans have the opportunity to gain higher moral standards if they can see the forest from the trees, and they truly desire such standards. Trouble is that many people desire only that which is necessary to survive and thrive and base their morality on selfish desires. If your morality is of the highest standards you certainly can't expect others to follow.

So one climbs the mountain of their journey to find that which is the greatest path to follow, and at the end of their journey find that few if any others sought it also.

I think many people are focused on what is and not what could be if. People see the apparent end of the road of living and see nothing further then that. They live on through their offspring if they care as such.

So there are eternal mindsets, and temporal mindsets. But to be moral certainly benefits everybody who is reasonable and empathetic.

I have found there to be great standards of goodness, and all roads lesser. Can humans be good without God? If God didn't make us to be good, then why bother making anyone or anything? Surely humans are capable of deciding their own fate or destiny? Some religions would have you believe that humanity can not be good of its own accord. If that is true then we would have all died out by now. Or God would be obvious to us all.

Some say God is hidden from those whom do not truly seek God. I don't think that is reality. You can't behold the evil and the good without making your presence known and be a God of action.

 

[stvdv]

If your morality is of the highest standards you certainly can't expect others to follow.

Yes. And it becomes clear to me, that Saints stayed alone in the Himalayas (people did not want to follow them there)
And when you expect others to follow you, you're in big trouble (being disappointed all the time)

I think many people are focused on what is and not what could be if.

Maybe these people do not really believe there is more then "what is"

Surely humans are capable of deciding their own fate or destiny?

Self Effort is a major part in my Spiritual path

Some say God is hidden from those whom do not truly seek God

Unless they found God (so no need to seek), this seems correct to me. Maybe "truly (truth) seek" is a keyword here.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Regarding "do not harm others" as a trait of a moral person: Would self defense and execution of justice be immoral because it harms others?

Depends on the intent. I would have to think defending oneself against a deadly threat would not detract from being a moral person if it were necessary for survival.

Execution of justice is not an excuse to be immoral and it should never cause harm imo.