Life Forward Anchor 1

[Phil Deakins]

21 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Since the two words are synonyms, they are similar in certain usages.  

Rather than responding as above, which (to me) comes across as harsh and argumentative, I probably would have simply said something along the lines of "While they may be synonyms in some contexts, my usage was not such', and left it at that.

I don't see anything synonymous between 'rude' and 'harsh'. I looked up definitions for harsh and I looked up 'harsh' in the online thesaurus - specifically synonyms of it, and there's nothing at all that suggests 'rude'. Sorry, Lil, but you are mistaken.

However, i do accept that you thought they were synonymous. Nevertheless, I'm puzzled as to why you would even write the word 'rude' instead of 'harsh'. I can only think that you'd forgotten what I actually wrote and your misunderstanding of the words 'rude' and 'harsh' caused it.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

20 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

Well that's a crock of *****, you said precisely that...shall I quote it? ...

Yes please.

Oh, I see. I just realised what you meant. May I point out that "don't do it" does not actually tell you what you can and cannot do, any more than shouting "Don't do it!" to someone who is about to jump off a cliff is telling him/her that s/he can't jump of the cliff. In both cases, they are very strong (when bolded) suggestions, and in no way intended to be rules as to what one can and cannot do

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Dakota Linden]

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Please try to keep the discussions On Topic for what the OP posted.

Hijacking threads to discuss whether or not comments may or may not be interpreted as rude, harsh, uncouth, inappropriate, etc., are not appropriate. If you wish to discuss the tone of another user's post, please take the comments private.

 

[Phil Deakins]

WHO said my comments were "uncouth"? I'll marmalise 'em!

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Rhonda Huntress]

[Love Zhaoying]

I wonder if "Life Forward Anchor" is some translation of "Pay It Forward"?

*Edit* I hope this is topical! I was trying to interpret the meaning of the topic!

Edited July 24, 2017 by Love Zhaoying

[Qie Niangao]

4 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Seriously,anyone throwing Leviticus in your face..Tell them to go back to Sunday school and pay attention this time..

True, most of Leviticus doesn't get much play in the Old Testament Hit Parade, but I'm not aware of an organized effort to get it dropped from the canon.

In fact, it would be an interesting development if the Christians finally got 'round to taking out the trash again, which hasn't really happened since about the 16h century when the apocrypha was officially downgraded to tabloid status by all the brand-name denominations.

Oh, we're supposed to discuss the OP's original topic, eh? In that case: What's with this "child of God" malarkey? If there were a god, do we really think she'd want us to behave as mere children, or to think of ourselves as having only child-like responsibilities? Such childish believers might shirk adult moral duties -- such as tidying up after their climate change, for example.

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

19 hours ago, JoeDex said:

 Because in order for you to add value to the world you have to know that you have value. Your being alive is valuable and your purpose is to add to the value of others. This can be accomplished in as many ways as you can imagine. Likewise, there are those that try and take value from others. 

You have value and you matter.

This is what I see as the heart of the topic. Can we get a discussion going on this? Here is what I posted earlier:

I really like the idea of living in a world where everyone understands that they matter and where the guiding principle is too help each other.

I really like the recognition that there are many ways to do this.

Can we talk about this too?

How do you add value to the lives of others? Do you truly value yourself?

[Phil Deakins]

It would be a good discussion, Bitsy. I see something different though. Some people get very low occasionally, and usually need help to get out of it. I see the value of having such an attitude of self-worth as being very useful in such times. We don't normally tend to think of ourselves in that sort of way, but I do think it's a very good way to think, especially if we encounter a deep depression within.

[Love Zhaoying]

17 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

It would be a good discussion, Bitsy. I see something different though. Some people get very low occasionally, and usually need help to get out of it. I see the value of having such an attitude of self-worth as being very useful in such times. We don't normally tend to think of ourselves in that sort of way, but I do think it's a very good way to think, especially if we encounter a deep depression within.

Have you hugged a depressed person today?

[Luna Bliss]

I think what we need to feel valued shifts over time. In the earliest years what we need to feel valued focuses mostly on our individual needs, but it appears (according to growth psychology) that our self-esteem shifts more to what we contribute to society (if our development goes well).
In other words, to what we give as opposed to only what we take. These seem to be the happiest people with a sense of purpose -- those who are able to achieve this.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Luna Bliss

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Have you hugged a depressed person today?

Nope. Are you depressed?

[ChinRey]

18 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

Personally I believe that everyone has a right to choose what they believe.

I see what you mean but is it really possible to choose what to believe?

[sirhc DeSantis]

Possible to choose? Well chose to belive in Anoia and never looked back.

[ChinRey]

10 hours ago, Skell Dagger said:

I told him why I didn't believe I was a child of god, because god's teachings tell those that follow them I should be put to death.

Which god? There are quite a lot of them, you know

I don't believe in any of them myself but since you quoted from the Old Testament, I have to point out one often overlooked fact: Anybody who take the Old Testament literally is by definition not a christian. Jesus was very clear stating that signinficant parts of the old teaching were, if not wrong, at least oudated and no longer valid. It's such an essential part of his teaching you simply can't ignore that and still claim to be a christian.

Not a lot of people know that.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by ChinRey

[CanisMercy]

[JoeDex]

Thank you all for these comments, thoughts and replies. 

[JoeDex]

Anchor 2 

There is a God. He is everywhere and he loves you.
 

Anchor 2 follows directly from Anchor 1

Something, however you define it, created matter. I call the something God. You may call it something different. I do not profess to know all the names for the creator so I will use what is familiar to me: God. Because you were created and because you have value, you are precious in the eyes of God. God is everywhere. even avowed deniers cannot explain what preceded the big bang. So, something created matter as we know it both light and dark matter. That creator had to have power. Much more power that I could possibly ascertain. 

The concept of God being everywhere takes on more importance in Anchor 6, but for now, know that you are loved by a great power. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by JoeDex

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

I see what you mean but is it really possible to choose what to believe?

This gets back to my doubts about free will. We get the impression we're free to choose, but is that because we simply aren't able to grasp all the subconscious processes at work in our brains and all the influences that bring us to each new decision point? I've been reflecting on it for years, but it seems I have no choice but to be an atheist. Any other belief system drives me nuts.

While I suspect I'm not really free to choose, the illusion is difficult to penetrate.  So, I don't blame all of us for believing in it, but I'd be quite happy to have dinner with like minded people who relish the irony of doubting free will while exercising it to pick from the menu.

[Pamela Galli]

7 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This gets back to my doubts about free will. We get the impression we're free to choose, but is that because we simply aren't able to grasp all the subconscious processes at work in our brains and all the influences that bring us to each new decision point? I've been reflecting on it for years, but it seems I have no choice but to be an atheist. Any other belief system drives me nuts.

While I suspect I'm not really free to choose, the illusion is difficult to penetrate.  So, I don't blame all of us for believing in it, but I'd be quite happy to have dinner with like minded people who relish the irony of doubting free will while exercising it to pick from the menu.

Kierkegaarde said that the only thing we are free to choose is to believe or not believe. Everything else is dictated by our understanding of science or logic, however imperfect. We don't choose to believe in gravity or 2 +2 = 4. We freely choose to believe in God or not -- it is not compelled.

That said, free will is a paradox. The New Testament says God chooses those who will choose Him. 

[Skell Dagger]

*sigh*

I honestly hope you're not going to start a new thread for each of these 'anchors'. One overarching thread would be more than adequate for them all. You can edit the original post of that thread to link to the post containing each of them. (Copy the 'posted X minutes ago' link for that.)

If you continue with a daily post for each new 'anchor' then this General Discussion forum is going to start feeling like answering the door every single day to someone doorstepping with a Bible in their hand. In Real Life we can choose not to answer the door, but here - although we could (if we felt extremely strongly about it) mute or block you so we can't see your posts - we can't mute or block threads. Thus, if you start a new thread every day for each 'anchor' you will soon fill up much of the front page of General Discussion with your own threads.

In your initial thread promoting this idea, you stated the following:

Quote

If you are interested in Life Forward, join our group.

Great. Fantastic. Good luck to your group, because it would only comprise people who were interested in your 'anchors' theory. I wish them - and you - well with it.

However, you then stated the following:

Quote

Upon reflection, I am going to keep the group closed because I do not want to leave the impression that I am doing this for member numbers. 

But right here you're trying for far more 'member numbers' than your group would probably get. You have an audience who can't choose not to see your threads. And you're creating multiple threads for this idea - three thus far: your original thread, your 'anchor 1' thread and now this 'anchor 2' thread, and presumably more to come. I don't know how many of these anchors there are (at least 6, clearly), but what I don't want to see is the front page of this GD forum turning into one person's platform, no matter how worthy they feel their message is.

In short: please, one thread is enough.

[LittleMe Jewell]

[Rhonda Huntress]

1 hour ago, JoeDex said:

in Anchor 6

Juliet Foxtrot Charlie.

For the love of god please tell me you are not really going to start a thread for these ....

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 minute ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

Juliet Foxtrot Charlie.

For the love of god please tell me you are not really going to start a thread for these ....

He's got no choice. And we're going to respond for the same reason.

;-).

[Rhonda Huntress]

2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

He's got no choice. And we're going to respond for the same reason.

;-).

I think I'll just find somewhere else to be for a couple of weeks.