|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
THE TWELVE STEPS AND THEIR BIBLICAL COMPARISONS
------------------------------------------------------------------ 1)We admitted we were powerless over our addictions and compulsive behaviors. That our lives had become unmanageable.I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. (Romans 7:18) 2)Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Philippians 2:13) 3)Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God. Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship. (Romans 12:1) 4)Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD. (Lamentations 3:40) 5)Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being, the exact nature of our wrongs. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. (James 5:16a) 6)Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. (James 4:10) 7)Humbly asked Him to remove all our shortcomings. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9) 8)Made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31) 9)Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24) 10)Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! (1 Corinthians 10:12) 11)Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and power to carry that out. Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly. (Colossians 3:16a) 12)Having had a spiritual experience as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and practice these principles in all our affairs. Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)When it comes to my deep feelings about how the Bible reveals further truth than secular programs, I chuuck my American Flag and start preaching! This message has been edited by Phat, 12-10-2005 02:11 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The first step itself is admitting powerlessness. How can you take responsibility for your life if you have no power? I'll give you an anology to illustrate it for you. There are 2 guys drowning. One sees he is going to drown and calls out for help, and he is saved by the Lifeguard. Heck, he tells the lifeguard he messed up by getting out in the water in the first place when he couldn't swim. Did he take responsibility for his life, or was he irresponsible? The 2nd guy decides he doesn't need saving, and he can take of care himself just fine, thank you, and drowns. Which one was the most responsible? It's not accepting responsibility for your life to reject the means of saving your life. It's just recklessness. This message has been edited by randman, 12-10-2005 04:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Ever hear the term "higher power"? It refers to God. The problem with denying faith-based groups funds to deal with some social problems is that faith-based groups are often more effective, and sometimes almost the only effective method for dealing with certain problems. 1) The argument given for putting money into faith based programs is that they will be able to fill a secular, that is civil function, role. If the argument is that they should be funded because it will involve our govt calling down God for assistance, then such programs are inherently unConstitutional. 2) Most faith based programs are not necessarily about issues which demand God's intervention, even as some sort of moral support. Handing out a welfare check, and giving a person a reference for a job they may be able to take, is not aided by a belief in God. 3) There is no concept that divine intervention works. And if it did then we should not have faith based programs, but rather only one single denomination of religion based program as only one theology could be true (if it is monotheist). Or are you suggesting a shotgun approach to intervention? 4) Even if we are appealing to the faith of a person to help pull them through tough times, that is a personal issue. To coerce a person in need to particular spiritual stances is as I have already mentioned... predatory. You are not really seeking to aid the person, but yourself, in their hour of need.
Now AA is sufficiently non-sectarian to obtain government endorsement, but it is still faith-based. In fact, that's one of the primary ingredients, placing faith in a higher power. I see others have already been dealing with this. Frankly anyone can substitute anything for the "higher power" and "God" which they mention in their twelve steps and get the same results. They key would be moving the locus of control beyond themselves. Sort of creating an invisible entity that can make decisions for them. It is still just them. And it is as another poster pointed out, shifting from one dependency to another. That is why they can fail just the same. What if you were to find out that buddhists had less incidence of chemical addiction than others and escape addiction in greater numbers? Would that make you believe that buddhism was the real way and we should make sure to shift money into that religion?
The fact is faith-based charities cannot always be duplicated by secular charities. It's just the way it is. That's an assertion I'd like some evidence for. Especially the ones that do simple services like hand out checks and refer jobs to people. I do agree that faith based charities cannot be duplicated in two important ways by secular charities: 1) Secular charities will not proselytize to the children of recipients and create a negative dynamic in that recipients household, in the process of delivering their civil service... 2) Secular charities cannot duplicate the degree of unConstitutionality that faith based programs involve, when merged with public money. You can argue the greater effect of God in civil service all you want. Such charities existed back in the days of our founding fathers and they denied allowing ties between govt and such services. Can I ask you this rather obvious question: If God is all powerful and wanting to help people, and these charities are so great at helping people already, why does God need public money to continue the service he is already providing? You see randman the purpose is obvious here. God doesn't need tax dollars to survive, human predators using his name do. Ye of little faith. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Did he take responsibility for his life, or was he irresponsible? He was responsible for himself if he used reason to realize he was in trouble, and used a source of obvious aid. The other example you gave was not about taking responsibility. How would denying you have a problem count as taking responsibility? Here's a more apt analogy. And just to let you know, I got this one from a minister that was discussing the issue of looking to God for help. A man is drowning. He realizes he is in trouble and prays to God to save him. A lifeguard swims to him and offers to help. He says he doesn't need the lifeguard's help as he has prayed to God and God will save him. He goes under for the first time and manages to pull himself back to the surface for another prayer. A boat pulls up and says they can pull him in. He says he is waiting for God to save him and he is sure God will, so sends the boat away. He goes under for a second time and then claws his way back to the surface. There is a helicopter waiting and they say they are ready to save him. He declines the offer because he is waiting for God to save him. He then sinks beneath the waves and drowns. Being a good Xian he find himself in heaven before God. He asks God, "How come you didn't save me when I was drowning?" God looks puzzled and then answers... "But I sent you a lifeguard, a boat , and a helicopter." ... No matter the nature of God, his aid will have to be natural. It will be civil. There is no reason that a source of aid has to be stamped with a giant cross, and its helpers actively proselytize to you during a rescue, for it to be from God. If you really believe in God, why can't a secular govt's rescue boat do as great a job as a faith based rescue boat? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the third person drowning gives resposibility over his life to god
and drowns there is a big difference between calling out to a life guard - that you know is trained and dedicated to saving your skin based on secular evidence - and trusting to some unknown factor to provide some other means of rescue. was that your point? by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
That's right. No laws and so the government is not forbidden from ackowledging God, participating in religious expressions, nor from grants to faith-base charities, as these are not laws pertaining to religion. I just find it amazing that someone with the intelligence necessary to read enough to communicate on the internet cannot interpert a simple statement that has already been interperted by the supreme court. The government must stay out of religion. Religious expression is religious. Faith based charities are religious. There is no concept of favoring one religion as you did indeed say. The governmen stays out. Got it? No, you don't get it. Becuase you don't want it. Carry on randman. Don't let any of those stinking facts get in your way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
Of course, Bush also says that God told him to invade Iraq, but I think that was just a case of brain-cell death from poly-substance abuse. Maybe that was compounded by his polysyllable abuse. He struggles with two and hurts himself with more. (examples not necessary)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
holmes writes: God looks puzzled and then answers... "But I sent you a lifeguard, a boat , and a helicopter." Then the news reporter interviewed the life guard, and the boat crew and the helicopter crew and they all said they were atheist. God didn't send them. If you want to find out what god sent, talk to that third guy that RAZD mentioned. Yeah, the one that drowned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Then the news reporter interviewed the life guard, and the boat crew and the helicopter crew and they all said they were atheist. God didn't send them. If you want to find out what god sent, talk to that third guy that RAZD mentioned. Yeah, the one that drowned. ???? RAZD essentially made the same point I was making. It wouldn't matter whether everyone involved was atheist or not. The point of the story is that help will always come in the form of something real that we can deal with and use in a practical way. That is even if one believes in the supernatural. Its a cautionary tale to keep theists grounded and not dismiss help from others just because they are not supernatural. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
Hello holmes,
My intent was to agree with you and add a bit of my perspective. To continue my point: Has anyone, anywhere, anytime, substantiated that they have received help from the supernatural? (To include god, angels, aliens, magic, etc) What about from the dark side, Satan maybe. (edit for typo) This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-11-2005 11:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Falwell has a 24,000 member congregation and 500,000 people who receive his weekly email.
You can join their "with us or against us" campaign pressuring stores to spread the Christian message.Joining The ”Friend Or Foe’ Campaign also Liberty Council "Friend or Foe" Campaign Please make a tax deductible contribution to promote our Christmas Campaign The campaign to "reclaim" christmas. LOL. Gotta love those pagan rites.... by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024