Does God Really Make You Good?

Do you think if they all gave up God and religion, their economic condition would significantly improve?

 

First step is admitting you have a problem.

 

The next step is doing something constructive about it. The bulk of philanthropic giving in for the past 200 two centuries has been by religious people. A majority of hospitals, schools and benevolent works were built or started by religious groups. A study in Policy Review in 2003 found that religious people were 25 percentage points more likely than non-religious people to donate and 23 points more likely to volunteer time. Sociologists Putnam and Campbell found in 2013 that there is an 8 in one chance that churchgoers will give money to a secular charity, compared to a 6 in one chance that non-relgious folks will do so. But charitable giving by non-believers seems to be on the upswing. Organizations like Skeptics and Humanists Aid and Relief Effort, Humanist Charities, the Non-Believers Giving Aid Disaster Relief Fund, and Foundation Beyond Belief have entered the field. Competition in this area is something churches should welcome. Philanthropist Bill Gates seems to be an agnostic, while Warren Buffett, big contributor to the Gates Foundation and my idea of what a good Christian should be, is and atheist. There are, of course , the governmental and inter-governmental organizations like UNICEFadded to the mix. But I think the idea that religious people are ignoring the plight of the needy is a gross distortion.

 

Nevertheless, I think that there are no rules basically to follow for receiving the goodness of God. Oft-time the goodness comes those for no self-justifiable expectation. The presence of Nature will give someone in solitude a peace of mind from which will be some needed healing. Generally the constructive course is plausibly both ways with or without the theoretical involvement of God in mind.

The question is what is the goodness of God from a created beginning of the world, that is the way, the truth, and the light for which mankind so often misses and descends into the depths of the misguided, and miscommunicated? Should religion thereby be exclusionary and elitist for some, and dogmatic in the representation for the following hoard as it were. I say no; there is still a well educated public each of which can do it's personal analysis, and make it's own conclusions; and the broader intellectuals can make their judgments with the humanly defined and trained clerics.

Also, I'd think Man is defined, not God.

 

Do you also take your own advice?

 

For some reason, the Forums wasn't allowing me to edit this statement in my earlier post in which there was an extraneous 200 before the words two centuries. So I'm doing it this way. The bulk of philanthropic giving in for the past two centuries has been by religious people.

 

We went from amply fed to adequately fed so we wouldn't get the sense that I was trying to overstate my case as you seem to be doing with your use of invented statistics such as as about 1.2 of your three listed QOL factors.

Happiness or satisfaction comes from the perception of genuine proportions. Reality supports it's constituents. Madness is maddening.

 

So Alan you don't get rid of the ego as you look out and see yourself. You identify yourself expansively viewing your home as larger than the body which your ego calls home, as getting rid of something that doesn't exist cannot be done. What can be done is that we can be ourselves and our protections extend naturally to those things we call our own. There is a confusion between subjective and objective because we subject ourselves to objectification.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0zSB2WEtwU

Does God ever make me better at links at images?

 

Should we also identify our body as more than the single unit that the ego calls self? In other words, is it true that we are all one?

 

All I interpreted from Allan Watts was: God is one for all, as each is one independent from God. Each is an ego, though that Ego was the illusion. But the one God is no illusion; we are always so bad incapable of the glory of God.

 

Speak for yourself. Who dost thou think thou art, anyway? For, verily I say unto you: I am good, and have not fallen short of the glory of God. Now, good day, sir . . .

 

Who's in it for the glory anyway?

 

lol. As long as you see, one is not good by himself, and for that reason there is an essence of a God's presence to being goodness.

Besides, thus I figured it out for myself not, you sheep.

 

There are the promises of the Sacred Heart in the Catholic religion, but never mind that; it is easy to know that God protects his faithful from corruption, let us say as to what is going on in places like Ferguson Missouri.

 

I identify the body as common currency of the species. A genetic model we all draw on. You or I alone have no chance.

 

To be glorified is to be awestruck. Those in it for the glory are in for grandiosity.

 

Of course if memory has physical being, then there is the materially secure ego for which there have been found a great many remedies for mental correction, over-night.

 

The mentally secure ego is one without a split minded view such as us vs. them. Memory has physical being the past does not.


And


We share our thoughts