Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Sacrifice Increases Worth

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:19:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

This measure of wealth is called opportunity cost...it's an economic principle.
anonymouse
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:25:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

All I read in this was autism. I am reincarnate.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:55:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:25:26 AM, anonymouse wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

All I read in this was autism. I am reincarnate.

How so?
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 4:37:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:55:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:25:26 AM, anonymouse wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

All I read in this was autism. I am reincarnate.

How so?

Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 5:48:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 4:37:51 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:55:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:25:26 AM, anonymouse wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

All I read in this was autism. I am reincarnate.

How so?

Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

+1000

Are you an Objectivist?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 12:21:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 5:48:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/26/2015 4:37:51 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:55:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:25:26 AM, anonymouse wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

All I read in this was autism. I am reincarnate.

How so?

Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

+1000

Are you an Objectivist?

Yes, among other things.
Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 1:06:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 4:37:51 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:55:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:25:26 AM, anonymouse wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

All I read in this was autism. I am reincarnate.

How so?

Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

What lol? First I don't see anywhere why I should accept that in practicing altruism "self-sacrifice" is the only moral action. That seems a bit exaggerated. I would call it more of a practice of application, to deny that there are people who have needs that are unable to repay of the same value is ridiculous, absurd, I could give you an unlimited amount of examples of this.
To deny the element of sacrifice in relationships is absolutely out of touch with reality lol, I've learned more about sacrifice in my marriage than anything else, why would you deny those things?
The second half of your statement seems more of an assertion and is straying away from the heart of the meaning..
Altruism-In simple terms, altruism is caring about the welfare of other people and acting to help them. WIKI
This is pretty simple stuff here and is completely natural and morally acceptable.

Jesus is an example of the heart of God, sacrifice is love at its core, that is the force that drives it. Jesus is the expression of love.

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

Between rational people lol? you have never sacrificed anything for someone that had not the same "value" to give you back in return, I'm sorry but this is very shallow as you can't be serious...
Altruism wouldn't apply unless there is some need, at least in Christianity, but needs are everywhere at least in my world, maybe you live in some perfect existence if so where is that?
I would have to say if you take your last statement seriously I would say you've never interacted with anyone lol.
But again, I see no reason to believe your assertion that this must be the only way to interact, it's only applicable when there are needs, it's a practice not some fixed mentality.

Altruism- is the PRINCIPLE or PRACTICE...
WIKI
And to any normal person this is good stuff.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 1:12:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 12:21:25 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 8/26/2015 5:48:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/26/2015 4:37:51 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:55:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:25:26 AM, anonymouse wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others.

All I read in this was autism. I am reincarnate.

How so?

Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

+1000

Are you an Objectivist?

Yes, among other things.

Excellent! We have that in common.

Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 4:01:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

I believe it is good to be both altruistic and selfish, a collective and a personality. The relationship between the individual and the collective necessitates both. If individuality is too extreme, social cohesion falters; if collectivism is too extreme, all worth is given to the group and its members' only utility is to serve the group.

In saying sacrifice adds value to life, the sacrifice the individual makes is not only for the collective but also for oneself. In other words, the individual must work for the benefit of his, or her, own self. My concern is not sacrifice for the mere sake of sacrifice but for that which the individual is sacrificing. In other words, is the individual sacrificing his, or her, life for the sole purpose of materialism? Or, is the individual also sacrificing materialism for himself, herself? I don't believe we are solely material beings; for me, we are more than that; and, to focus, purely, on the material world is to miss out on the spiritual, or emotional, side of life.

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

If both parties traded two equivalent values, the purpose of commerce would not make sense. In other words, one must trade something of lesser value for something of greater value. The value of each item is set by both the buyer and the seller. The item would thusly be purchased by the one who values it the most, or is willing to give the greater sacrifice.
harvester
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 12:09:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:16:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The degree of sacrifice a person is willing to make determines the value of a thing. For instance, it is a greater sacrifice for a person with limited means to purchase a pricey item than it is for a rich person. The sacrifice one is willing to make indicates the value an individual places on something. In the story of the widow's mite, Christ says the poor widow, which only cast two mites into the treasury, gave more than anyone else. Because, he said, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." So, according to the story, giving into the treasury was of greater value to her than anyone else. The person with little means must make a greater sacrifice to survive than someone who lives with abundant wealth; therefore, to the poor, survival has a greater significance and worth than to someone who sacrifices very little for sustenance.

"Clearly...," you may say, "...just because a rich person has to sacrifice very little to survive doesn't mean he would not sacrifice more."

I believe if the rich person sacrificed a great deal in the acquisition of wealth, he, or she, puts a higher premium on being wealthy than someone who has sacrificed very little. Therefore, to the rich, being wealthy holds that much more value than it does to someone who has sacrificed very little. To lose his, or her, wealth would be a tremendous price to bear. He, or she, sacrificed one's life to be rich; and, therefore, to lose one's wealth would mean his, or her, sacrifice was all for naught.

Secondly, if a person is born into wealth and has to do very little to keep it, wealth and, in turn, life, or the sustenance of life, has little value. If he, or she, lost all his, or her, wealth, the individual would do little to survive, being life is of little value to him, or her.

The goal should not be to shun riches for the sake of being poor and therefore have a richer more fulfilling life but to sacrifice not only for yourself but also for others. For, in so doing, not only do we add value to ourselves, but also the lives of others. : :

Don't worry. God plans on stripping all the wealth from his people as their flesh perishes. Giving up some material wealth is fruitless unless God takes is all away.