|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 28, 2015 20:16:26 GMT -5
The healthy or healthier believe in something. Their belief ranges from God to themselves but they do. The common denominator of drunks is a loss or abandonment of faith in everything. Lee, Since you are making a blanket statement about those addicted to alcohol, you must know a lot of people who are or have been addicted to alcohol.
Do you belong to Alcoholics Anonymous?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 28, 2015 20:29:17 GMT -5
The healthy or healthier believe in something. Their belief ranges from God to themselves but they do. The common denominator of drunks is a loss or abandonment of faith in everything. Lee, Since you are making a blanket statement about those addicted to alcohol, you must know a lot of people who are or have been addicted to alcohol.
Do you belong to Alcoholics Anonymous?
Wouldn't the answer to that question always be "no?" I mean, think about it: If you're not a member, then the answer is no. If you are a member, and you disclose it, then you're no longer anonymous, so the answer is still no, right? I guess the answer could be "Yes, I was a member of AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) until this very moment when I disclosed my membership and became un-anonymous" (what the heck is the word for the opposite of anonymous? Eponymous? Don't think so. Let's go with "identified.") "Now I'm a member of AI (Alcoholics Identified.)" Another niggle: Are they actually "members?" Or is it more just a matter of "yes, I attend AA meetings...have a sponsor...am a sponsor... am in recovery...etc."?
|
|
|
Post by And on Dec 29, 2015 0:22:26 GMT -5
A A is for anyone that needs help, It could be that help from a superior would have a deeper and full help if that is truly what is wanted.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2015 3:51:08 GMT -5
Lee, Since you are making a blanket statement about those addicted to alcohol, you must know a lot of people who are or have been addicted to alcohol.
Do you belong to Alcoholics Anonymous?
Wouldn't the answer to that question always be "no?" I mean, think about it: If you're not a member, then the answer is no. If you are a member, and you disclose it, then you're no longer anonymous, so the answer is still no, right? I guess the answer could be "Yes, I was a member of AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) until this very moment when I disclosed my membership and became un-anonymous" (what the heck is the word for the opposite of anonymous? Eponymous? Don't think so. Let's go with "identified.") "Now I'm a member of AI (Alcoholics Identified.)" Another niggle: Are they actually "members?" Or is it more just a matter of "yes, I attend AA meetings...have a sponsor...am a sponsor... am in recovery...etc."? Darn you, Gene! Why do you make everything so complicated?
BTW, I think everyone here knows I sell books -you know those old fashioned ones that you have to actually hold in two hands & turn pages & leave a book mark to keep your place.
Well, guess what? I just found a book at Goodwill, (my favorite & nearly only shopping spot)
It is called Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. The author is not listed (Anonymous, I guess) but it states it is by "A co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous tells how members recover and how the society." functions.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 2, 2016 13:08:54 GMT -5
An individual is not defined by their face, their body, their achievements nor their financial status. What defines a person is their character. The same applies to the almighty being/essence/spirit/God/power. If you dont know him how can you describe his character? If you see him as a cruel, ruthless unmerciful murdering ogre then imo you dont have a clue.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 2, 2016 21:22:48 GMT -5
I may be mistaken about the intent of the OP, but without regard to the intent, I would encourage all readers to interpret the word "God" or "god" however they wish.... and then tell us how they define it! Gene, I have come to believe that your refocusing of the original intention of this sub-board has the highest probability of generating constructive insight for most participants. It has long been my fear that the lack of a generally accepted vocabulary would render a serious search for “God” unproductive. By accepting the possibility of a reality beyond the comprehension of the human species, an agnostic forgoes his/her birthright to define “God”, IMO. Following one of the fundamental teachings of the Tao Te Ching, it becomes wise to move the concept and the word “God” from the foreground where they produce only disagreement and strife to the undifferentiated background where the concept blends seamlessly with an individual’s sense of self in relationship to “the whole”. But abandoning the “search for God” by moving the concept of “God” from the divisive foreground to the undifferentiated background renders us mute. We are no longer able to adequately describe the experiences of our lives that transcend rational processes. As social animals, this limit to expression leaves introspective individuals with an amorphous sense of incompleteness. I believe that it is this sense of incompleteness that motivates some to search for a new vocabulary, a vocabulary that addresses the concepts of “meaning” and “purpose” for an individual within a universal context. The search, then, begins within (rather than “out there”). The search need not be limited to one’s own cognitive capabilities or biochemistry, as some believe. Rather the search may extend to neighbors and perhaps even beyond to immutable universal truths. It is my lack of knowledge that enflames my desire, it is faith that propels my search for meaning, it is my aspiration to know and fulfill my purpose as fully as possible that flows like a mountain stream from the few glimpses of insight that reveal themselves along the way .
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 3, 2016 12:57:10 GMT -5
If you see him as a cruel, ruthless unmerciful murdering ogre then imo you dont have a clue. Just reading what has been written. Is the record incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by And on Jan 3, 2016 13:21:57 GMT -5
I deeply believe that GOD is eternal and Just in all He does in regard to the very beings that He created.
My opinion Does anyone have proof otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by And on Jan 3, 2016 18:34:41 GMT -5
If you are not justly reading , you would certainly not have a clue about what true justice is. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 3, 2016 20:12:48 GMT -5
I deeply believe that GOD is eternal and Just in all He does in regard to the very beings that He created. My opinion Does anyone have proof otherwise? You are making the claim. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any proof?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 3, 2016 20:15:09 GMT -5
If you are not justly reading , you would certainly not have a clue about what true justice is. IMHO. Could you explain "justly reading"? And I am guessing that when/if you provide that meaning the next question would be asking to explain how reading relates to justice.
|
|
|
Post by And on Jan 3, 2016 21:02:17 GMT -5
I was paraphrasing . What did you mean by just reading? Were you reading the context justly? If you were then you would have a clue of why GOD is truly and wholly just in all towards His creation.
|
|
|
Post by And on Jan 3, 2016 21:21:05 GMT -5
"What doth the Lord require of the. , to do justly......" Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Post by And on Jan 3, 2016 23:28:13 GMT -5
Reading " How to fight a just war, justly."
|
|
|
Post by Justice? on Jan 4, 2016 7:05:05 GMT -5
I deeply believe that GOD is eternal and Just in all He does in regard to the very beings that He created. My opinion Does anyone have proof otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 4, 2016 9:16:31 GMT -5
I deeply believe that GOD is eternal and Just in all He does in regard to the very beings that He created. My opinion Does anyone have proof otherwise? Really? So "God" is now a euphemism for "Even if we have the means, we cannot find the will to solve the problem. And we would rather use our resources on iPhones, war, and making ourselves sick from overeating." From the Institute of Hazard, Risk, and Resilience Blog: “… there is more than enough food to go around, even as the global population gets bigger and more people demand a varied diet as many people living in more developed countries do… Because of the technological means in place for planting and harvesting food there are often surpluses, especially in richer countries, but food is often wasted.
Instead of becoming more conservative and conscious of the food resources available, many nations have become overly consumerist and wasteful. 1.2 to 2 billion tons of all food produced ends up as waste, which is 30 percent to 50 percent of total food production in the world, and it is not only a waste of food but a waste of energy, water, and other resources that go into producing it.
In the meantime, while there is a global food surplus taking place there is still starvation in developing countries throughout the world. Many people are not getting enough to eat and the main contributor is a large-scale social problem that no one can seem to tackle fully: poverty.
Poverty is not merely a social problem it is a major health hazard and humanitarian disaster.
And it is largely because of inequality that poverty is allowed to sit at the table unwelcome, removing the possibility of providing the food resources needed by everyone, but tolerated by present, past, and likely future generations nevertheless.
This is one of many reasons why food insecurity is a global challenge. Why during a time when food production is at its highest hundreds of millions of people are still starving?”
|
|
|
Post by Ourbrotherskeeper on Jan 4, 2016 11:01:29 GMT -5
Really? So "God" is now a euphemism for "Even if we have the means, we cannot find the will to solve the problem. And we would rather use our resources on iPhones, war .... people are still starving?” [/i][/quote] our human nature can very unjust in many ways. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 4, 2016 11:15:23 GMT -5
Really? So "God" is now a euphemism for "Even if we have the means, we cannot find the will to solve the problem. And we would rather use our resources on iPhones, war, and making ourselves sick from overeating." From the Institute of Hazard, Risk, and Resilience Blog: “… there is more than enough food to go around, even as the global population gets bigger and more people demand a varied diet as many people living in more developed countries do… Because of the technological means in place for planting and harvesting food there are often surpluses, especially in richer countries, but food is often wasted.
Instead of becoming more conservative and conscious of the food resources available, many nations have become overly consumerist and wasteful. 1.2 to 2 billion tons of all food produced ends up as waste, which is 30 percent to 50 percent of total food production in the world, and it is not only a waste of food but a waste of energy, water, and other resources that go into producing it.
In the meantime, while there is a global food surplus taking place there is still starvation in developing countries throughout the world. Many people are not getting enough to eat and the main contributor is a large-scale social problem that no one can seem to tackle fully: poverty.
Poverty is not merely a social problem it is a major health hazard and humanitarian disaster.
And it is largely because of inequality that poverty is allowed to sit at the table unwelcome, removing the possibility of providing the food resources needed by everyone, but tolerated by present, past, and likely future generations nevertheless.
This is one of many reasons why food insecurity is a global challenge. Why during a time when food production is at its highest hundreds of millions of people are still starving?”
WOW!What an incredibly powerful response! Your response could also nicely address the thread "Does materialism feel right?" While thinking about the photo accompanying your post, a new thought was sparked in my mind. The photograph provides evidentiary proof of a fact. From a materialist's perspective, a fact can be categorized, studied, and provide the foundation for the discovery of new facts. But the humanity portrayed and suggested by the photograph remains poor and hungry. I would like to suggest that it is the "unseen" world that is responsible for infusing individuals with the empathy sufficient to motivate the compassion required to relieve suffering.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 4, 2016 18:42:26 GMT -5
An individual is not defined by their face, their body, their achievements nor their financial status. What defines a person is their character. The same applies to the almighty being/essence/spirit/God/power.If you dont know him how can you describe his character? If you see him as a cruel, ruthless unmerciful murdering ogre then imo you dont have a clue. Which "almighty being/essence/spirit/God/power," are you describing? There have been so many throughout human history!
If you mean the Judeo-Christian God of the OT & NT, how else can you describe someone who was such a cruel, ruthless unmerciful murdering ogre that HE committed genocide by killing almost every one whom He was supposed to have created to start with by drowning them?
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Jan 4, 2016 19:11:13 GMT -5
An individual is not defined by their face, their body, their achievements nor their financial status. What defines a person is their character. The same applies to the almighty being/essence/spirit/God/power.If you dont know him how can you describe his character? If you see him as a cruel, ruthless unmerciful murdering ogre then imo you dont have a clue. Which "almighty being/essence/spirit/God/power," are you describing? There have been so many throughout human history!
If you mean the Judeo-Christian God of the OT & NT, how else can you describe someone who was such a cruel, ruthless unmerciful murdering ogre that HE committed genocide by killing almost every one whom He was supposed to have created to start with by drowning them?
Yes this proves that Noah believed GOD and preached to warn that there would be a great flood that would destroy them. Alas, poor Noah could offer them no proof that GOD existed or that He would send a flood and destroy any that were not in the Ark I wish someone of those would have believed Noah GOD did want to save and still does!!
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 4, 2016 22:21:26 GMT -5
Thank you for posting that tragic image Justice. Famine is a true example of suffering on this planet. SharonArnold your response to the starving children was to infer that the human species can 'solve such problems' or tragedies. In the context of a specific tragedy such as famine, compassionate humans do use science to develop new methods for crop productions; promote economic advancement; control population growth through medical or surgical interventions; educate and empower communities to achieve autonomy and thus improve the welfare of those living in fragile environments. Science is the most reliable source of measures to prevent or control much of the world's suffering. (Why do christians who hold the writings emanating from an ancient civilization to be true and obediently conform to the bible's 'moral' (or not) directives stop there; why not also maintain the practices of those from the biblical era regarding health care, modes of transport, the ancients' knowledge about the universe etc?) Scientific progress emanates from seeking to improve the lives of others and when science is used for advancements it launches from moral principles Eg. the suffering of children due to diseases motivates a scientist to discover the prevention or cure of such a disease. In contrast, the bible condones many amoral concepts including the New Testament's validation of vicarious redemption through a'human?' sacrifice. How does the christian (or other believer) explain how scientists, who are identified as a less religious group than the general public and therefore overwhelmingly hold no belief in a god, initiate positive interventions which reduce suffering? It is odd to hold to the belief that your god is benevolent and all-powerful whilst non-believers are having the greatest positive impact on human suffering. The bible reveals the Hebrew god to be neither benevolent nor all-powerful, instead he is portrayed as a bungling, incompetent monster. At least there were early warning signs of his callous nature in the accounts of genocide in the Old Testament including the drowning of most of the products of his failed creation attempt. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that a benevolent god could indifferently observe the mass suffering of the sentient beings (including non-human animals: please consider the ubiquitous total daily suffering of infinite numbers of these poor beings) he created whilst possessing the power to stop this. Christians and other believers often cite 'natural disasters' as being part of god's plan to control and warn his creation. An example of such a disaster is in this Graphic footage . The platitudes mouthed by those who observe such confrontational images of dead victims of all ages (as in the linked video and resulting from a disaster out of their control) which insist their god is compassionate are insulting.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 4, 2016 22:29:36 GMT -5
Yes this proves that Noah believed GOD and preached to warn that there would be a great flood that would destroy them. Alas, poor Noah could offer them no proof that GOD existed or that He would send a flood and destroy any that were not in the Ark I wish someone of those would have believed Noah GOD did want to save and still does!! Which version of the bible reading? Where does it say that the population was ever preached to or warned that there would be a flood? Where does it say that anyone even asked for proof? It is clear from the bible record that god did not want to save anyone but Noah and his family. You statement that god wanted to save is not at all what it says in Genesis. You can't just make up scripture to make it look like god was against mass homicide. It clearly states that god wanted to kill all creatures that breathed and had no intention of giving them a warning or providing them the possibility of repenting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 23:09:53 GMT -5
Yes this proves that Noah believed GOD and preached to warn that there would be a great flood that would destroy them. Alas, poor Noah could offer them no proof that GOD existed or that He would send a flood and destroy any that were not in the Ark I wish someone of those would have believed Noah GOD did want to save and still does!! Which version of the bible reading? Where does it say that the population was ever preached to or warned that there would be a flood? Where does it say that anyone even asked for proof? It is clear from the bible record that god did not want to save anyone but Noah and his family. You statement that god wanted to save is not at all what it says in Genesis. You can't just make up scripture to make it look like god was against mass homicide. It clearly states that god wanted to kill all creatures that breathed and had no intention of giving them a warning or providing them the possibility of repenting. I believe the warning was the building of the ark everyone could see it and they had 120 years to repent...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 5, 2016 0:15:52 GMT -5
I believe the warning was the building of the ark everyone could see it and they had 120 years to repent... Is this stated in the bible or is it speculation? There is certainly no hint from the text that god cared enough to issue a warning of any kind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 4:28:27 GMT -5
simply creator will do... Creator of heaven and earth and all that is within will do for me.
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Jan 5, 2016 5:21:46 GMT -5
Noah was a preacher of righteousness It seems that his preaching fell on deaf ears . GOD saw that and he saw they were Continually wicked (and He repented that He had made/created them)
This is truly just and as His creation was grieving Him exceedingly. Either you believe GOD is the Creator or you do not. It is impossible for us to know everything GOD knows, If we do not believe Him, we will be destroyed just as in the days of Noah. That is what Jesus prophesied, also. right!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 5, 2016 6:42:12 GMT -5
Really? So "God" is now a euphemism for "Even if we have the means, we cannot find the will to solve the problem. And we would rather use our resources on iPhones, war, and making ourselves sick from overeating." From the Institute of Hazard, Risk, and Resilience Blog: “… there is more than enough food to go around, even as the global population gets bigger and more people demand a varied diet as many people living in more developed countries do… Because of the technological means in place for planting and harvesting food there are often surpluses, especially in richer countries, but food is often wasted.
Instead of becoming more conservative and conscious of the food resources available, many nations have become overly consumerist and wasteful. 1.2 to 2 billion tons of all food produced ends up as waste, which is 30 percent to 50 percent of total food production in the world, and it is not only a waste of food but a waste of energy, water, and other resources that go into producing it.
In the meantime, while there is a global food surplus taking place there is still starvation in developing countries throughout the world. Many people are not getting enough to eat and the main contributor is a large-scale social problem that no one can seem to tackle fully: poverty.
Poverty is not merely a social problem it is a major health hazard and humanitarian disaster.
And it is largely because of inequality that poverty is allowed to sit at the table unwelcome, removing the possibility of providing the food resources needed by everyone, but tolerated by present, past, and likely future generations nevertheless.
This is one of many reasons why food insecurity is a global challenge. Why during a time when food production is at its highest hundreds of millions of people are still starving?”
WOW!What an incredibly powerful response! Your response could also nicely address the thread "Does materialism feel right?" While thinking about the photo accompanying your post, a new thought was sparked in my mind. The photograph provides evidentiary proof of a fact. From a materialist's perspective, a fact can be categorized, studied, and provide the foundation for the discovery of new facts. But the humanity portrayed and suggested by the photograph remains poor and hungry. I would like to suggest that it is the "unseen" world that is responsible for infusing individuals with the empathy sufficient to motivate the compassion required to relieve suffering. I am inclined to agree with you. If there is more than materialism, I feel this ‘more’ underpins empathy in humans and also (I think) other sentient beings. As always I have to consider the possibility that empathy may not be more than a product of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 5, 2016 6:51:43 GMT -5
Thank you for posting that tragic image Justice. Famine is a true example of suffering on this planet. SharonArnold your response to the starving children was to infer that the human species can 'solve such problems' or tragedies. In the context of a specific tragedy such as famine, compassionate humans do use science to develop new methods for crop productions; promote economic advancement; control populations through medical or surgical interventions; educate and empower communities to achieve autonomy and thus improve the welfare of those living in fragile environments. Science is the most reliable source of measures to prevent or control much of the world's suffering. (Why do christians who hold the writings emanating from an ancient civilization to be true and obediently conform to the bible's 'moral' (or not) directives stop there; why not also maintain the practices of those from the biblical era regarding health care, modes of transport, the ancients' knowledge about the universe etc?) Scientific progress emanates from seeking to improve the lives of others and when science is used for advancements it launches from moral principles Eg. the suffering of children due to diseases motivates a scientist to discover the prevention or cure of such a disease. In contrast, the bible condones many amoral concepts including the New Testament's validation of vicarious redemption through a'human?' sacrifice. How does the christian (or other believer) explain how scientists, who are identified as a less religious group than the general public and therefore overwhelmingly hold no belief in a god, initiate positive interventions which reduce suffering? It is odd to hold to the belief that your god is benevolent and all-powerful whilst non-believers are having the greatest positive impact on human suffering. The bible reveals the Hebrew god to be neither benevolent nor all-powerful, instead he is portrayed as a bungling, incompetent monster. At least there were early warning signs of his callous nature in the accounts of genocide in the Old Testament including the drowning of most of the products of his failed creation attempt. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that a benevolent god could indifferently observe the mass suffering of the sentient beings (including non-human animals: please consider the ubiquitous total daily suffering of infinite numbers of these poor beings) he created whilst possessing the power to stop this.Christians and other believers often cite 'natural disasters' as being part of god's plan to control and warn his creation. An example of such a disaster is in this Graphic footage . The platitudes mouthed by those who observe such confrontational images of dead victims of all ages, and due to a disaster out of their control, which insist their god is compassionate are insulting. I think you’ve said it well joanna. This picture, illustrates, for me, just a teeny bit of the suffering in this world. It is not possible that a God be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent yet allow mass suffering. Whilst I can’t define “God” I can certainly eliminate the omnibenevolent omnipotent combination.
|
|