This is God in action

Thu May 28, 2015 12:19 pm

FourPart;1479851 wrote: Third World simply means countries that are not aligned with the U.S. or Russia (1st & 2nd Worlds).

You ignored the point and issue.

Regards

DL

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 28, 2015 12:20 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1479835 wrote: What happens on the day when the E. U. or U.K. becomes a third world nation due to overpopulation?

Will it begin to blow those ships out of the water as Mercy Killings?

Will the E. U. or U.K. become and act like the old city states who had limited resources and had to use baby sacrifice to insure that a new mouth to feed did not create hunger and death for an older member of that community?

Here in Canada, we have yet to have much of what the E. U. is having to suffer but all nations may soon need to make hard choices. We are at about 8 billion and stats show we will have to learn to live with 10 billion and climate change may push us to kill instead of take in those boatloads of unfortunate people.

Regards

DL

Far too many negative 'what ifs' for me.

What if international aid uplifts the situation of third world countries, making the exodus unnecessary ?

What if after a time overseas, all these ex-pats return home loaded down with finance and ideas to build their own economies ?

Why Regards DL ?........why not Regards GCB ?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu May 28, 2015 12:47 pm

Why ask why? But seriously What IF rarely means anything but changing the subject or confusing the issue.

Thu May 28, 2015 1:28 pm

Bruv;1479853 wrote: Far too many negative 'what ifs' for me.

What if international aid uplifts the situation of third world countries, making the exodus unnecessary ?

What if after a time overseas, all these ex-pats return home loaded down with finance and ideas to build their own economies ?

Why Regards DL ?........why not Regards GCB ?

A business habit.

We are already doing much in and for the third world.

We have taken a full billion out from below the poverty line in the last 20 years and stats show us doing the same in the next 20.

That is not good enough to keep up to the population growth and it seems that our oligarch owners do not know how to or are unwilling to redistribute wealth in a more timely fashion.

Our socio economic demographic pyramid is not in it's ideal shape and in a free and chaotic economy, it will likely stay that way because any politician who speaks of wealth redistribution is soon silenced by his owner.

This shows the American situation but the world wide graph would look only slightly better. That is my assumption and I do not have a world wide graph to show.

9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

Regards

DL

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 28, 2015 3:19 pm

A little like the antibiotics becoming ineffective, the monetary system will become ineffective also.

All the riches in the world cannot buy you a secure place to lay your head, when there are hungry people roaming the streets.

If that is the way things are in America, half the worlds population would trade places with the poorest of them and still they would send money home to their parents.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu May 28, 2015 4:39 pm

Bruv;1479865 wrote: A little like the antibiotics becoming ineffective, the monetary system will become ineffective also.

All the riches in the world cannot buy you a secure place to lay your head, when there are hungry people roaming the streets.

If that is the way things are in America, half the worlds population would trade places with the poorest of them and still they would send money home to their parents.

The monetary system is already showing signs of great strain, just look at what various nations owe the IMF!

Fri May 29, 2015 8:41 am

Bruv;1479865 wrote: A little like the antibiotics becoming ineffective, the monetary system will become ineffective also.

All the riches in the world cannot buy you a secure place to lay your head, when there are hungry people roaming the streets.

If that is the way things are in America, half the worlds population would trade places with the poorest of them and still they would send money home to their parents.

With gated living, the rich living as prisoners, they should realize that their super wealth is only buying them a more comfortable prison cell.

If you look at that graph, you can see how little of their real wealth they would have to move to gain their own freedom.

Is it possible that they are not aware of their own prison made of money?

Can the rich be that stupid?

Seems so.

Regards

DL

Fri May 29, 2015 8:44 am

Smaug;1479868 wrote: The monetary system is already showing signs of great strain, just look at what various nations owe the IMF!

Heartless banks are rich while people starve.

The bank has to develop a heart and change the shape of our demographic pyramid. A relatively easy task once the decision is made to do it.

Just the profits from stabilizing the economy would pay for it and then some. That is in Economics 101.

Regards

DL

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri May 29, 2015 10:20 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1479897 wrote: Heartless banks are rich while people starve.

The bank has to develop a heart and change the shape of our demographic pyramid. A relatively easy task once the decision is made to do it.

Just the profits from stabilizing the economy would pay for it and then some. That is in Economics 101.

Regards

DL

Yes, we have to work smarter, and waste less. We also need some wealth re-distribution, possibly in the shape of better interest rates, and greater pay, coupled with less tax, possibly, and greater compassion. Not being an economist, I'm not totally sure of the correct path to take, but you're quite right, GCB, something must be done to help folk, and stabilize various economies!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri May 29, 2015 1:17 pm

Smaug;1479902 wrote: Yes, we have to work smarter, and waste less. We also need some wealth re-distribution, possibly in the shape of better interest rates, and greater pay, coupled with less tax, possibly, and greater compassion. Not being an economist, I'm not totally sure of the correct path to take, but you're quite right, GCB, something must be done to help folk, and stabilize various economies!

Greater Pay is NOT wealth re-distribution; we are all in business for ourselves and should be demanding, group-wise, union-wise, whatever the arrangement, higher pay because our work is a valuable commodity. Unless, of course, we feel we are not worth it. As for those capitalists who threaten to move employment elsewhere, guess what? They will do it anyway.

As for taxes, here in the U.S. the wealthy give input & write the tax laws. Wall Street controls our taxation. Any benefit to the average worker is null compared to what the wealthy get in breaks. We pay for their breaks. Lombard Street is the equivalent of Wall Street. Every nation has such a street, every nation's taxation is designed to please them.

The low/no interest rates since the so-called "recession" serve to consolidate the wealth to the wealthy. It's a gimmick to disallow OUR money from gaining a profit on interest.

I'm disgusted with how little people really understand the motives behind the regulations, which, in brief, is "Bring Back Feudalism."

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri May 29, 2015 4:51 pm

AnneBoleyn;1479911 wrote: Greater Pay is NOT wealth re-distribution; we are all in business for ourselves and should be demanding, group-wise, union-wise, whatever the arrangement, higher pay because our work is a valuable commodity. Unless, of course, we feel we are not worth it. As for those capitalists who threaten to move employment elsewhere, guess what? They will do it anyway.

As for taxes, here in the U.S. the wealthy give input & write the tax laws. Wall Street controls our taxation. Any benefit to the average worker is null compared to what the wealthy get in breaks. We pay for their breaks. Lombard Street is the equivalent of Wall Street. Every nation has such a street, every nation's taxation is designed to please them.

The low/no interest rates since the so-called "recession" serve to consolidate the wealth to the wealthy. It's a gimmick to disallow OUR money from gaining a profit on interest.

I'm disgusted with how little people really understand the motives behind the regulations, which, in brief, is "Bring Back Feudalism."

I would have thought that with lighter taxes, in combination with greater pay and higher interest rates goes some way towards wealth re-distribution. I can understand how you feel about the rich getting richer by unfair mechanisms, they always seem to prosper nicely, especially when the system is set up to benefit them most of all. This country (UK) seems to be heading back towards the Victorian era in some ways, especially in the financial divide(s) we have; I.E. vast numbers of people working for minimum, or near-minimum wage, zero-hours contracts and part-time work, often depending on food banks to make ends meet. A sorry spectacle.

Fri May 29, 2015 6:03 pm

Smaug;1479902 wrote: Yes, we have to work smarter, and waste less. We also need some wealth re-distribution, possibly in the shape of better interest rates, and greater pay, coupled with less tax, possibly, and greater compassion. Not being an economist, I'm not totally sure of the correct path to take, but you're quite right, GCB, something must be done to help folk, and stabilize various economies!

The world knows what is required to stabilize the economy but will just not collectively cooperate and surrender to a single currency.

Thinking of our demographic hokey skate shaped common, it is relatively easy to see that it would not take much to be able to fund all of your wish list, globally.

What is missing is political will. A will that thinks global, not local.

We are all in this together is what we have to let enter our consciousness, --- and walk our collective talk.

We need an actual world bank.

God created economic Babel. Can man reverse that economic chaos and return to economic order.

Only if I am elected God of the New And Improved Devine Council of the World.

:-2:-2 Where am I.

:wah:

Regards

DL

Fri May 29, 2015 6:10 pm

AnneBoleyn;1479911 wrote: Greater Pay is NOT wealth re-distribution; we are all in business for ourselves and should be demanding, group-wise, union-wise, whatever the arrangement, higher pay because our work is a valuable commodity. Unless, of course, we feel we are not worth it. As for those capitalists who threaten to move employment elsewhere, guess what? They will do it anyway.

As for taxes, here in the U.S. the wealthy give input & write the tax laws. Wall Street controls our taxation. Any benefit to the average worker is null compared to what the wealthy get in breaks. We pay for their breaks. Lombard Street is the equivalent of Wall Street. Every nation has such a street, every nation's taxation is designed to please them.

The low/no interest rates since the so-called "recession" serve to consolidate the wealth to the wealthy. It's a gimmick to disallow OUR money from gaining a profit on interest.

I'm disgusted with how little people really understand the motives behind the regulations, which, in brief, is "Bring Back Feudalism."

Many of your facts are right on the mark.

Facts do not seem to be creating the political will to tame the economy.

Oligarchs are well informed. They are just greedy to the point of abomination.

Regards

DL

The

Fri May 29, 2015 6:12 pm

Smaug;1479918 wrote: I would have thought that with lighter taxes, in combination with greater pay and higher interest rates goes some way towards wealth re-distribution. I can understand how you feel about the rich getting richer by unfair mechanisms, they always seem to prosper nicely, especially when the system is set up to benefit them most of all. This country (UK) seems to be heading back towards the Victorian era in some ways, especially in the financial divide(s) we have; I.E. vast numbers of people working for minimum, or near-minimum wage, zero-hours contracts and part-time work, often depending on food banks to make ends meet. A sorry spectacle.

Bottom line. Guaranteed return. Main requirement. Trust.

Regards

DL

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 30, 2015 3:01 am

What is needed is obvious. It's like a situation where a plane is rapidly running out of fuel & is going to crash into the shark infested ocean where, if they don't ket killed in the crash, the sharks will most certainly get them all. However, all it would take is for just one fat person or 5 skinny ones to jump out, so as to allow that little bit more fuel for the plane to reach land safely. However, the fat one is a mate of the pilot, so he gets to push the 5 skinny ones out of the door.

Of course, there are those unsung fat heroes in the past who have made such sacrifices, but very few & far between.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat May 30, 2015 1:42 pm

AnneBoleyn;1479911 wrote: Greater Pay is NOT wealth re-distribution; we are all in business for ourselves and should be demanding, group-wise, union-wise, whatever the arrangement, higher pay because our work is a valuable commodity. Unless, of course, we feel we are not worth it. As for those capitalists who threaten to move employment elsewhere, guess what? They will do it anyway.

As for taxes, here in the U.S. the wealthy give input & write the tax laws. Wall Street controls our taxation. Any benefit to the average worker is null compared to what the wealthy get in breaks. We pay for their breaks. Lombard Street is the equivalent of Wall Street. Every nation has such a street, every nation's taxation is designed to please them.

The low/no interest rates since the so-called "recession" serve to consolidate the wealth to the wealthy. It's a gimmick to disallow OUR money from gaining a profit on interest.

I'm disgusted with how little people really understand the motives behind the regulations, which, in brief, is "Bring Back Feudalism."

You started out so good.

Minimum wage laws are more a political tool than benefit for workers.

Two times I had to join union and without going into details the first time didn't matter to me. Second time when all done and said realized it is a business exploiting workers.

I am not the only one. Ridicules wage demand are not only bad for the worker,

During a Los Angeles City Council hearing Friday, organized labor continued its push to have unionized companies exempt from a measure to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.

Los Angeles Unions Push To Be Exempt From $15 Minimum Wage

During a Los Angeles City Council hearing Friday, organized labor continued its push to have unionized companies exempt from a measure to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.

Last week the city council voted 14 to 1 on a tentative agreement to raise the cityâ€™s minimum wage. Though some specific provisions have yet to be finalized, a draft of the measure prompted some in the labor movement to ask for an exemption for unionized companies and workers. Rusty Hicks, executive secretary-treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, notes that though he supports the measure, allowing exemptions will ultimately help workers. His union is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

THE DAILY CALLER

But a host of complex and divisive questions about the plan will likely remain unanswered even after the law is passed -- including whether unionized companies will ultimately be able to opt out of the wage requirements if their workers agree.

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Yup, keep them down on the plantation.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 30, 2015 2:03 pm

Be reasonable, tude dog, how could they prosper if they didn't steal from the little guy to enrich their greedy, screw-you-jack, caviar-and-champagne lifestyles?

Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:54 am

FourPart;1479939 wrote: What is needed is obvious. It's like a situation where a plane is rapidly running out of fuel & is going to crash into the shark infested ocean where, if they don't ket killed in the crash, the sharks will most certainly get them all. However, all it would take is for just one fat person or 5 skinny ones to jump out, so as to allow that little bit more fuel for the plane to reach land safely. However, the fat one is a mate of the pilot, so he gets to push the 5 skinny ones out of the door.

Of course, there are those unsung fat heroes in the past who have made such sacrifices, but very few & far between.

Only in Christianity does the master die for his slaves.

The rich will have to start looking out for vigilantes soon.

Moral and intelligent people will not tolerate the present trends for long now that we begin to understand them.

Regards

DL

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 8:24 am

Moral people wouldn't have slaves in the first place.

Fri Jun 05, 2015 8:46 am

FourPart;1480230 wrote: Moral people wouldn't have slaves in the first place.

Correct. For todays person.

Perhaps not so correct for back in the day.

When thinking of slavery we have to remember that in some cases in the old days, slavery was a form of welfare in that if one did not go into servitude one might starve to death. One could let himself be indentured for x number of years.

Regards

DL

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:58 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1480234 wrote: Correct. For todays person.

Perhaps not so correct for back in the day.

When thinking of slavery we have to remember that in some cases in the old days, slavery was a form of welfare in that if one did not go into servitude one might starve to death. One could let himself be indentured for x number of years.

Regards

DL

In theory, that is still lawful in the UK (I emphasise, "In Theory").

There is a massive difference to being bonded to someone than being owned by someone as property. Bondsmen go into servitude of their own free will (albeit where there are limited options). Slaves are either forcefully captured or born to it by being bred as cattle.

Fri Jun 05, 2015 4:39 pm

FourPart;1480256 wrote: In theory, that is still lawful in the UK (I emphasise, "In Theory").

There is a massive difference to being bonded to someone than being owned by someone as property. Bondsmen go into servitude of their own free will (albeit where there are limited options). Slaves are either forcefully captured or born to it by being bred as cattle.

No argument.

In a day when an owner could do whatever they liked to slaves, bonded or not, the differences in treatment might have been more like house slave as compared to a field slave.

It is hard to say from this far up the time line.

Like baby sacrifice in areas of finite resourses, there may have been good reasons for what the ancients were doing.

Regards

DL

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 4:57 pm

he reasons would have been simple. Why pay for something you could get for free. Actually, not much changes there when it comes to employers. If they can get skilled workers to work for minimum wage, they will.

Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:08 pm

FourPart;1480280 wrote: he reasons would have been simple. Why pay for something you could get for free. Actually, not much changes there when it comes to employers. If they can get skilled workers to work for minimum wage, they will.

Some will for sure but not an employer with morals. Those employers know that happy workers are more productive workers.

Most companies tend not to like to admit using sweet shop or child labor. They hate getting caught doing so.

Regards

DL

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:10 pm

From a Christin point of view let us remember that Jesus broke the rules apparently often: Healed on the Sabbath , picked grain on the Sabbath.n For him compassion trumped the law. That is our calling as Christians.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:33 pm

Ted;1480873 wrote: From a Christin point of view let us remember that Jesus broke the rules apparently often: Healed on the Sabbath , picked grain on the Sabbath.n For him compassion trumped the law. That is our calling as Christians.
No. That is our calling as Human Beings.

Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:17 am

Ted;1480873 wrote: From a Christin point of view let us remember that Jesus broke the rules apparently often: Healed on the Sabbath , picked grain on the Sabbath.n For him compassion trumped the law. That is our calling as Christians.

I agree but his message was more than that.

He said that the Sabbath was created for man and not man for the Sabbath.

By inference, that can be expanded to religion and God were created for man and not man for religion and God.

That is why he urged us all to go inside of ourselves and seek the only God we can ever know. Ourselves.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers after God. God here I define God as the best laws and rules to live life with.

We believe that those laws and rules, as Jesus said, are found in our minds/hearts.

I use the following to try to illustrate this notion. A bit of history and then a mindset and method to do what I promote.

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards

DL

Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:20 am

FourPart;1480874 wrote: No. That is our calling as Human Beings.

We are all in this together, alone.

Regards

DL

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:47 am

Man is not God, but made in his image, it is said.

I've seen a few "human" images on the surface of Mars, looking remarkably like us, so maybe THEY created us millions of years ago?

"One story is good, until another is told", or so the saying goes. E.G. "The Earth is flat" was superseded by " The Earth is a Sphere, and the Sun orbits it", which in turn was superseded by " The Earth and various planets orbit the Sun". Obviously this is a broad, very basic overview, but serves to illustrate the point. As knowledge develops, so do we, and the environment we explore/shape around us.

It is also said that Man at his strongest is weaker than God at his weakest. Man as God sounds rather like being part of "the God-Head" which is actually a Bhuddist belief.

Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:01 am

Smaug;1480885 wrote: Man is not God, but made in his image, it is said.

I've seen a few "human" images on the surface of Mars, looking remarkably like us, so maybe THEY created us millions of years ago?

"One story is good, until another is told", or so the saying goes. E.G. "The Earth is flat" was superseded by " The Earth is a Sphere, and the Sun orbits it", which in turn was superseded by " The Earth and various planets orbit the Sun". Obviously this is a broad, very basic overview, but serves to illustrate the point. As knowledge develops, so do we, and the environment we explore/shape around us.

It is also said that Man at his strongest is weaker than God at his weakest. Man as God sounds rather like being part of "the God-Head" which is actually a Bhuddist belief.

Then Jesus was a Buddhist.

The Godhead is your head.

Have a look at Michelangelo's creation painting and note that he has God sitting in the right hemisphere of the brain. If you look, you will also note that the Vatican's largest sculpture is that of the pineal gland that was thought to activate our third eye, or single eye as Jesus called it.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

God has always been a human. As it should be.

Regards

DL

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:21 am

How time and translation/interpretation can change the pristine essence of a story or message. Ever played "Chinese whispers?"...

Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:51 am

Smaug;1480890 wrote: How time and translation/interpretation can change the pristine essence of a story or message. Ever played "Chinese whispers?"...

That is why Rabbi Wolpe said that we should ignore everything written before 1,000 ce.

The thing is, what is doing damage is not really the myths. It is literal reading of those myths and foolishly believing in the supernatural to form a theology for natural people.

That is why secular law is kicking the crap out of religious law.

Regards

DL

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:35 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1480290 wrote: Some will for sure but not an employer with morals. Those employers know that happy workers are more productive workers.

Most companies tend not to like to admit using sweet shop or child labor. They hate getting caught doing so.

Regards

DL

And there aren't too many of those "to the pound!" It's true enough that happy workers are a little more productive, but why bother with higher wages when the competition for work is so fierce? Most people have to be grateful for anything, so can't be too picky over wages.

"Caught by the short and curlies" is a phrase that springs to mind here.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:27 am

LarsMac;1479415 wrote: Man puts religious rules aside to help a young boy.

Sikh puts religious rule aside to help boyIt's interesting that survival instincts will often usurp culturally informed behavior. For those who would choose not to help the child? Well they're overly informed. Thus the danger of culture in general and religion in particular. Really, the only difference between the devout and say, a Jeffery Dahmer, is the first has become passively numb to their biology while the other is overtly pro-active in their insensitivity due to cultural conditioning. Which is more disturbing? You tell me!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:31 am

Smaug;1479429 wrote: No, the motorist definitely wasn't God, but the Sikh's actions were compassionate (Godly), by unwrapping his turban for a stranger, thus breaking with strict protocol. I know a couple of Sikhs, and believe me, they are very devout. This chap certainly didn't let religious tenets interfere, did he?

That makes him a "man of God", in my eyes, whatever his faith may be. And God sayeth "in my house, there are many mansions". Indeed.I'm having difficulty parsing the last part with the first. Help would be appreciated.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:32 am

Smaug;1479433 wrote: One could ask where this compassion originates? It is a matter of opinion and/or faith. I merely attempt to define "Godly".Why? What use is it?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:36 am

ttLarsMac;1479439 wrote: Compassion is the key to true godliness, regardless of the religion or faith, or lack of.Religious people are constantly attempting to hijack word meaning and inject "god" into it. We're now in the 21st century and are doing that less. Death is so necessary for the human species.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:37 am

Smaug;1479440 wrote: In my opinion, disregarding the dogma of religious tenets in favour of compassion makes him a "good" man. In "black and white" terms, "good" is of God, if you like, and "bad" is of evil. Such is my interpretation.Isn't that a shame.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:39 am

I'd better quit this thread now as I'm certain to catch the wrath of god and others.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:39 am

Ahso!;1480970 wrote: I'd better quit this thread now as I'm certain to catch the wrath of god and others.

So............you 'do it' on purpose ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:48 am

Bruv;1480974 wrote: So............you 'do it' on purpose ?Everything I post is intentional. Not so with you?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:54 am

Bruv;1480974 wrote: So............you 'do it' on purpose ?To be clear: reactions to my posts are not my responsibility, they are the responsibility of the person reacting. Simply because my style of communicating might conjure up some feelings due to past experiences doesn't mean I have to throttle back on my meaning or how I chose to express it. There are times when I choose to confront a post straight on and there are times when I choose otherwise. When it comes to forums, I mostly prefer being as direct and unambiguous as I can be.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:07 am

Ahso!;1480976 wrote: Everything I post is intentional.Not so with you?

Just thought I would get confirmation, indeed the same with me, but mine I hope,are more........pithy.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:13 am

Bruv;1480979 wrote: Just thought I would get confirmation, Confirmation of what and why? That you want to feel justified in your being offended; and so that you make it known that others aren't alone in their being offended?

Bruv;1480979 wrote: but mine I hope,are more........pithy.Just as feedback from my perspective: in being compact - yes; as in being succinct - no.

You do appear to be trying harder though. Glad to see it.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:27 am

Ahso!;1480965 wrote: It's interesting that survival instincts will often usurp culturally informed behavior. For those who would choose not to help the child? Well they're overly informed. Thus the danger of culture in general and religion in particular. Really, the only difference between the devout and say, a Jeffery Dahmer, is the first has become passively numb to their biology while the other is overtly pro-active in their insensitivity due to cultural conditioning. Which is more disturbing? You tell me!

Culturally informed behavior.

It seems that compassion and altruism as human traits often trump culture and tradition. I find that religious people will tend to abandon compassion to their cultural conditioning. Though that human trait to help those in immediate need can just as often by-pass that conditioning.

The idea of God is beyond such conditioning. When you look at the God as defined by the various religions, a little common sense will tell you that the god of those religions cannot possibly coexist with the ideas of compassion and altruism. Those Gods demand obedience and sacrifice, at the cost of truth and compassion, and tend to separate us from each other.

When we abandon the conditioning and care for each other, we actually become more God-like.

On the other hand, if we abandon compassion and care for the notion that personal survival is the grandest of causes, we become something else, entirely, neither God-like, nor human.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:42 am

Sorry, you missed my point. I wasn't referring to personal survival, but species survival, which is where compassion and altruism do indeed have their roots. There's nothing "godly" about it because these traits, conditions, or what have you have been selected for over millions of years and are an integral part of the human condition, generally speaking. "Godliness" implies value obtained through understanding and/or obedience, which is contrary to an evolutionary perspective.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:07 am

Ahso!;1480983 wrote: "Godliness" implies value obtained through understanding and/or obedience, which is contrary to an evolutionary perspective.

I suppose that if you lock onto the biblical definition, you are correct. Amazing how the Christian/Biblical world governs your way of thinking.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:57 am

Ahso!;1480980 wrote: Confirmation of what and why?

Keep up..... "I'm certain to catch the wrath of god and others."

That you want to feel justified in your being offended; and so that you make it known that others aren't alone in their being offended?

Offended ? Me ? I never mentioned myself being offended, only asked you if your intention was 'to catch wrath' ......remember ?

You do appear to be trying harder though. Glad to see it.

I do my best, thanks.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:44 am

LarsMac;1480984 wrote: I suppose that if you lock onto the biblical definition, you are correct. Amazing how the Christian/Biblical world governs your way of thinking.That's the cultural environment I grew up in, I'm quite adaptable. I guess it also shows that I've read the bible.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:05 am

"Godliness", in my opinion is an adjective better described by the phrase "Holier Than Thou".