Think about it, we have millions homeless, probably millions more go hungry every day not to mention, those without any type of medical care. But somehow, some way a human being who plays baseball thinks his skill is worth 27.5 million dollars a year for the next ten years, plus bonuses.
If that does not say something pathetic about the sports industry in this country what does?
Who, anywhere, anytime is worth that kind of money to run around bases, throw and catch a baseball and walk up to the plate three or four times in a game?
Does A Rod have no shame? No sense of self esteem? Regardless of how much he might give away, there is no justification for this kind of money. Does Baseball have no sense of shame?
What is even more embarrassing is that people will pay 50, 75, 100 dollars or more to sit and watch this game and fund his lifestyle.
Give me Little League any time. At least until they start doing steroids and asking for more ice cream and pizza at the end of a game!
12 comments:
You know what else feeds in to this? Kids (past the point of innocence), which is more so to say teenagers and young adults, who dream of a career in sports soley for this reason. Who dreams of raking in the money because they feel their "skills" are above everyone else's. They believe honing physical dexterity is more valuable that sharpening ones intellectual aptitude.
But, they're not blame, are they? Someone fed them this information ...
That's an astute observation Dann. Everybody's "field of dreams" is different in some form. It is likely that the desire for fortune, not fame may drive many - the combination of both, even more. However, I believe there has to be some personal responsibility.
When does the desire for fortune cross the line of a person's sense of self worth? Example: steroids. It is true they make one stronger, faster, and bigger, but what is it that makes a person trade long term health for short term gain?
We all have the right to choose, sooner or later we have to live with our choices. We cannot always attribute our mistakes to someone else's influence.
Thanks for stopping by.
Can't we? If we can't attribute our mistakes to influence, we can't attribute our successes to them either, something we - if humble - zealously do.
There's nothing wrong with finding influence, guidance, a path to be on that others have trodden and laid with self-observation. Although I agree with you, its entirely ones own responsibility to judge and gauge their actions and consequences, at the same time no one is born with moral integrity - philosophy aside.
"Common sense", for example, is something built and learned, not common. Moral action is the same way.
You sound like a Calvinist.
I did not say we could not attribute certain actions to "influence" I said we cannot ALWAYS make that connection. We are all influenced in some form or fashion. That is what living in community/family is all about. However, there comes a time in every person's life when they must choose.
For example, I have been strongly influenced by my step-father. But at some point, I cannot continue to blame him for my poor choices or behavior. I have to take responsibility for my own actions and choices.
I'm not certain what you mean by "born with moral integrity". If you are referring to our sin nature or total depravity, then we could spend quite a while on that one. However, if you are referring to moral development, then you are right to some degree.
Hmm, I've been called a lot of things but never a Calvanist. I don't even know how to take that.
Regardless, by "born with moral itnegrity" I aimed to mean that no one is born with an innate idea of right and wrong, to put it in to the two most ranged categories. This is to say, outer influence is always, in my belief, a cause for ones decision making. Yes, I whole-heartedly agree with you that at some point we ourselves will stop and look at a decision we will make or have made and must know it is ourselves making these decisions, our own selves.
But, to not drag too much into theology and philisophy, we ourselves are but the results of influence that has become either A) mechanical and reflexive (e.g, we learn yelling is bad so when we hear it we automatically cringe) or B) methodical (e.g, we have heard from someone not to try a certain food so we mull over this information).
It is my own personal belief that nothing anyone ever does is without influence, whether is be repressed and brushed off or bluntly at the front of our minds.
I hope I don't sound like I'm arguing, for there is a distinct difference between asking questions and questioning, and discussing and debating. I always worry this difference will become blurred and others will find me rude and tenaciously audacious.
"tenaciously audacious"....I love it!
Honestly Dann, I love these types of discussions. It stimulates growth and expands our belief system and worldview.
Brush off the Calvinist comment, I'm sure if you had a bent in that direction, you would know. Nevertheless, for clarification, Calvin believed that man was totally depraved. Unable and incapable of making any positive moral choice outside of regeneration. In other words, man cannot and will not choose spiritual good over evil.
If I understand what you are saying, it seems that moral or metaethical moral relativism is your position, or situational ethics.
It is a similar position that you might hear argued in a trial or seen on "Law and Order". The person is not responsible for the crime because he acted as a result of outside influences. That is, if his parents had not yelled at him and berated him as a child he would not have raped and murdered the young woman.
It may be true that his parents yelled and berated him as a child, but that does not excuse or justify the act.
I don't know if the "tabula raza" concept is valid. I can't say for sure. However, if Paul is right, Romans 1:18ff, than there is some sense of an inner moral compass that directs all "men".
It's the only level of audacity that easily traverses to frisky, which becomes parallel to spunky, which is up there with jazzy and moxie.
That aside, however, I enjoy a good discussion or debate even, so long as the parties understand the difference I spoke of. As for our discussion ...
I didn't mean to convey that influences will transcend those many years - when it gets to that point, it starts to seem ludacris.
In your example, such a thing may be an influence, but only on maybe the initial foundation of his moral compass, but it could easily have evolved beyond that influence.
Think of it as blueprints for a building. Initially plans are made in generalities, then experts make decisions, investors add in their say, contractors put in insight, and in the end there is something that was no where near what it was originally founded on.
Influences all around shape us, it's a constant progress, I believe. Such in your example, the parents would have influenced their child, but it could have been for only a week because of the undeniable growth of the child. Eventually other circumstances, scenarios, and experiences would make that person how he was.
Okay, then based on what you are saying "man" is basically a product of his environment. At least that is your personal belief. So if it is correct...
Men in baseball use steroids because that is what other men in baseball do. (Or football, track, etc.)
I brush my teeth with the water running because that is what my personal environment and other influences dictated was appropriate behavior.
Kids pick their nose and eat their buggers because that is what all other kids do and it is deemed appropriate behavior. (Even for some adults!)
Outside of war, men kill other men because that is what they have been constructed to do if left to their own devices.
As you indicated Dann, we are discussing an issue - one that is not new by any means. So I just want to be sure I understand your position.
It is much like "predestination". What I do is not by choice, but I have been predestined to do it. God foreknew my choice even before I made it, so it really wasn't a choice after all I was just doing what He knew I would do anyway.
Depending on where you want to go with this, we may have to take it off line, or continue it at Christmas. I think we may be coming over to your folks place for the holiday.
nmacdonald@carolina.rr.com
My view, my belief, is that - ignoring the many philosophies and theological designs (although it does connect even if we don't) of newborn children still having memories of God and Heaven, I believe that we are born as clean slates with no knowledge. Even breathing is forced upon us as we can't do it automatically.
Basically, our thoughts, our reactions, our personal beliefs, our morals, are all built up by influences and our own choices (but these I believe are still influenced).
As for the idea of "predestination", I take that as an entirely different thing. My own belief is that God is all knowing and knows any choice we may ever make and knows the end results. But even with this, we ourselves make the decisions which negate many possibilities.
It's like a tree, where each decision branches off, each branch having more branches and so and so forth. Each person starts at the beginning with God knowing all the possibilities you could ever have in life. As you make a decision, certain possibilities become null. For example, deciding not to go to a party maybe negates meeting a new friend. Therefore, we still make choices unknown to God, but the fact these choices could come up are not.
But that's just my idea.
Well my.... I'm not sure where to go with that reply.
It definitely seems that you are processing several different things at the same time.
My hunch is that some of your thinking may be incongruent. But that may be representative of trying to keep philosophy and theology distinct and separate regarding your worldview.
Note: I am not a pediatrician, so I cannot say for sure where breathing is a forced action on newborns or not. I have learned that the expansion of the lungs may need the aid of a swat on the bottom, but from what the University of Pennsylvania Health and Pregnancy Center says, the baby "will start to breath on its own."
It may be that there is a both/and phenomenon to much of what we are talking about - babies excluded. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish whether your theology will "influence" your philosophy or visa versa. One thing is for certain, they cannot stand alone - one will certainly take precedence over the other.
It's the way my mind has always been. I think about twenty different things at a time without really concentrating on any one.
I'm sure many others can relate, perhaps you yourself can.
These ideas may seem blurred and ciclical to you, but to me they're distinct and clear. I rarely get to put such ideas into articulation, so perhaps, to quote Shakespeare, "Ay, there's the rub.".
Dann, I can certainly identify with holding on to several ideas or concepts at the same time. I am not implying that is a bad thing, just awkward when processing a discussion like this.
Nor do I think your ideas are blurred or cyclical. It is merely an observation about blurring the lines. You articulate your position fine, it is simply hard to hold continuity in an email discussion like this.
My point was this - the "sermon on the mount" and ethical/moral relativism make strange bedfellows.
Let's take my recent post about the death penalty. The moral relativist would say, as they did in NJ, it is not the right thing to do. As would some Christians. However, Jesus and Paul, as well as the OT, seemed to have no problem invoking that kind of punishment. Not in the traditional "eye for an eye" but in the simple carrying out of "due process" for those who commit crimes worthy of death.
I know that may start a whole new discussion, which is not my intent necessarily, it is simply to make a clarifying point. However, if it sparks your interest, we can pursue it under that thread.
Oh, by the way, Merry Christmas Dann!
Post a Comment