|
Post by linsi on May 8, 2006 12:54:08 GMT 10
eh linsi..the thread is under Christianity kaya siguro parang nalilimitahan sa Christian doctrines at Christian perception of "conscience"... anyways, I agree this is really a good discussion...reminiscent of RF Hay...salamat...may nakaintindi...
donot say that kuya banshik
if you only will read always' even ruth's and kenmikazes arguments you are all alone in your premises.. together with empire..
ang conscience kc kung aaralin ay kasama din ng christianity and pagans alike, hindi lumalabas actually, other people makes it difficult because they have their own precepts other than focusing on what we are saying..
while others are focusing and limiting these flows into christianity alone i am trying to explain the universality of conscience as the voice of God without any prejudice be it christians and muslims and pagans alike..at para maintindihan i included the psychoanalysis between id, ego and super ego which are all non contradictory to our christian doctrines..
simula pa lamang i never disagreed about the holy spirit but some has limited it to just christian teachings, and others went beyong final judgment seat of God..while i am into daily living with the id, ego and super ego which is the conscience.. that is why they become out of focus...
did i contradict? NO i was actually in details..
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 8, 2006 13:07:46 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
I am not denying the struggle between good and evil inside a person. However, choice is not limited to good and evil alone but also maybe good and greater good.
Please read the explanation of "Always" - conscience and free will may look the same but in reality they are not. One can scientifically breakdown the basis as a struggle between ID and EGO. But the moment one states that these alone form the basis between judging what is good and what is evil contradicts the Christian Doctrine that God's Word and Laws is the standard and arbiter.
Conscience may compel man to decide, but what desribes as good and evil is finally judged based on God's Word and Laws and not the basis alone of which man made the moral act.
BTW. There is a thing as "false conscience" - read the Bible. Ruth was kind enough to point out the conscience of pagans. Hind lahat ng desisyon ng pagans tama di ba...pero pagdating sa consicence nila tama ito...tawag dito "false conscience". This is the reason why we need Christian doctrine and God's Laws.
Yours: "muslims reject our bible and we reject their koran but we all have the same voice which corrects us whenever the id chooses the wrong thing.. it is the conscience the voice of God. "
Sa conscience ng mga nag "jihad" na terorista tama at moral sa konsisyensa ang pagpatay sa mga 9/11 victims. If I follow your logic Linsi, their id and ego erases their moral responsibilty because it is their consicence which is the voice of God already cleared them of their moral actions. And because there is no such thing as "false" conscience - how can you explain the status and nature of their moral (the terrorists) judgement then...specially when you have just defined it was the voice of God?
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 8, 2006 13:14:18 GMT 10
Sa conscience ng mga nag "jihad" na terorista tama at moral sa konsisyensa ang pagpatay sa mga 9/11 victims. If I follow your logic Linsi, their id and ego erases their moral responsibilty because it is their consicence which is the voice of God already cleared them of their moral actions. And because there is no such thing as "false" conscience - how can you explain the status and nature of their moral (the terrorists) judgement then...specially when you have just defined it was the voice of God?
that is not conscience , it is fanaticism, why then the muslims are divided? do you know that? many donot submit to such terrorisms. because terrorism itself is for the extremists and fanatics, the universality of the verdict is terrorism and it is a violation of the common good it is a universal evil ..
on the contrary ang namamayani sa mga panatiko ay id..because conscience is universal- the voice that dictates the universal good.. sa katunayan maraming muslim na pinapasabog ang kapwa muslims at pareho ang both parties pag namatayan umiiyak at may anguish because universally it is not good it is universally evil.
the same with the chrisitans maraming panatiko na hindi na binukas ang isip sa balanseng aral..
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 8, 2006 19:56:16 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Sorry but I have to put you on the spot : )
Yours: "that is not conscience , it is fanaticism, why then the muslims are divided? do you know that? many donot submit to such terrorisms. because terrorism itself is for the extremists and fanatics, the universality of the verdict is terrorism and it is a violation of the common good it is a universal evil ..
on the contrary ang namamayani sa mga panatiko ay id..because conscience is universal- the voice that dictates the universal good.. sa katunayan maraming muslim na pinapasabog ang kapwa muslims at pareho ang both parties pag namatayan umiiyak at may anguish because universally it is not good it is universally evil.
the same with the chrisitans maraming panatiko na hindi na binukas ang isip sa balanseng aral.."
1. You just described from several posts that it is "conscience" that compels man to decide and act which is good or bad. But now you claimed based on my example that it is "fanaticism" which compelled the terrorists to commit the evil act.
You have to be consistent. You claimed all human acts are contingent to conscience but suddenly the terrorist acts are deemed "fanaticism" and it is not conscience which made them act this way. Besides when you describe something as universal - it applies to all meaning there could be no divisions in standards.
(a) Can you explain where the conscience of these terrorist go if you claim conscience is "universal"? (b) Can you explain if these terrorists whom you just claimed acted on behalf of their "id" would be morally respoonsible for their actions?
2. You mentioned "universal" good as a condition for conscience. If you claim a standard which consicence adheres to outside of human standards, it means that conscience alone is not the sole arbiter of good and evil in human acts.
3. The example I have given which you just termed "fanaticsm" is an example of "false conscience" which you claim does not exist. If a person believes and judges what he does is good although it is actually an evil act based on moral law, it is an example of a false conscience.
A measure which I have been trying to share as a very dangerous precedent because in this case man alone is the sole arbiter of good and evil and not God's law.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 8, 2006 20:05:26 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Yours:
"while others are focusing and limiting these flows into christianity alone i am trying to explain the universality of conscience as the voice of God without any prejudice be it christians and muslims and pagans alike..at para maintindihan i included the psychoanalysis between id, ego and super ego which are all non contradictory to our christian doctrines.."
1. We both agree that conscience is universal because it applies to all men.
2. We disagree on the basis of your position that it is the sole arbiter of good and evil in human acts. My position is that the arbiter between good and evil is God's law not human judgment.
3. I also believe that common gorund is not established in the psychological basis of human acts. I disagree that the psychological basis would provide this common ground. Psychology defines good and evil based on human judgement alone and disregards moral law as defined by God.
However, common ground would be established on the basis of Law. God's Law for those who believe in faith, and Natural Law for those who reject it.
Thus, universal standard can be defined within the coverage of Law and not psychology. The Bible did not dwell on psychological acts, but rather it dwell on the study of the Law.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 1:49:56 GMT 10
Thus, universal standard can be defined within the coverage of Law and not psychology. The Bible did not dwell on psychological acts, but rather it dwell on the study of the Law. And how was the law formulated and handed down? And what were the first laws? Why was man given the laws? Isn't it because of his psychology which is inclined to choose evil at the very start? How did freud arrive at one part of his psychoanalysis? AND HOW DID THEORIES ARRIVE IF THE LIVING ORGANISMS WERE NOT OBSERVED on how to act and react on certain things according to their decisions in their minds in the veru beginning?
And where are the tangible things God made and fashioned inside man? the bible dealt with the psychological acts on the contrary because in the beginning the id violated that which is of God, the fall of man and even in the end, the id is used by mankind so that God will destroy the earth because the conscience which dictates right from wrong is denied.
The bible dealt with the study of the law, yes in the sense it gave the burden to man for difficulties because of the nature of man's psychology, the nature to rebel against which is right, the nature to choose that which is evil and that is the very nature of man's psychology as he chooses with his id that which violates the universal good.
with the id and ego came the free gift of choice
with the conscience came the verdict and judge which is the voice of God which dictates every man to do right from wrong regardless of race, color or creed.
Psychology is the intangible element inside man, it is the spiritual side, the mind and the soul which was given to man as the image of God. For God created man a LIVING SOUL ( MIND-PSYCHOANALYSIS)
It is the proof that man is made in the image of a spiritual being which is God.
THE LAW WAS GIVEN BECAUSE OF THE LAW BREAKERS because teh conscience was denied.
at first it was God's voice dealing with the psychology of man, the free will in the very beginning which is parallel to the id and ego..NOT THE LAWS..THE MIND OF ADAM which is intangible was given knowledge and the id, ego and superego at the very beginning..it was very good in the beginning until man in his psychoanalysis violated the voice of God..
the remores, guilt and verdict which is the conscience parallel to the superego the voice of God..
In the garden of Eden Adam used his ego in sinning, when guilt crept in, it was the super ego which was the conscience who made him guilty and made him hide from God.
i will say it again conscience is the only one which dictates man to do what is right from wrong because it is the voice of God..
apart from that are just merely dictates from other theories confusing every individual toa ccept this truth.
conscience is the only one which dictates man that which is good and right..
anyone can bypass his conscience, like what Adam did. It was a very ideal place in eden yet the id prevailed and when he sinned guilt gave him remorse so that he hid from God after the sin..
Again
conscience according to freud which relates to the christian teachings is the judge which dictates man to do right from wrong, and perform a universal good.
It is the voice which gives guilt whenever we do wrong and violates the universal good.
TERRORISM IS FOR EXTREMISTS AND FANATICS, BECAUSE THE MUSLIMS ARE DIVIDED WITHIN THEMSELVES, they bomb each other as well, conscience is not responsible for that because it deviates from its own definition as the voice which dictates that which is only for universal good. READ BACK kuya banshik..
that is the clear definition os the superego known as the conscience. The voice which only dictates man to do the right thing and the universal good. The voice which givew remorse and guilt when we do something wrong violating the universal good.
THE VOICE OF GOD in every man regardless of creed, color or race..
To say otherwise is a misnomer.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 3:10:40 GMT 10
Hi Linsi, Sorry but I have to put you on the spot : ) ok lang yan kuya banshik lahat tayo ay nasa board on the spot.. Yours: "that is not conscience , it is fanaticism, why then the muslims are divided? do you know that? many donot submit to such terrorisms. because terrorism itself is for the extremists and fanatics, the universality of the verdict is terrorism and it is a violation of the common good it is a universal evil .. on the contrary ang namamayani sa mga panatiko ay id..because conscience is universal- the voice that dictates the universal good.. sa katunayan maraming muslim na pinapasabog ang kapwa muslims at pareho ang both parties pag namatayan umiiyak at may anguish because universally it is not good it is universally evil. the same with the chrisitans maraming panatiko na hindi na binukas ang isip sa balanseng aral.." 1. You just described from several posts that it is "conscience" that compels man to decide and act which is good or bad.
no, conscience dictates only to that which is good because it is the judge of the id and ego, decision lies in the id with ego as accomplice, the act is then categorized by the conscience as good or evil dictating man towards good but once evil is accomplished by the id, the conscience was denied giving guilt to the crime committed afterwards example is Adam and Eve...... But now you claimed based on my example that it is "fanaticism" which compelled the terrorists to commit the evil act.
fanaticism is not the definition of the conscience, fanaticism is the choice and imprint of the id in order to give way for terrorism which is a universal evil., where does the choice reside? the free will resides in the ego, and in the id, the conscience is defined as the judge now accusing now defending where it is commonly known as the guilt upon accomplishing a crime. whenever a man chooses good and right, he listened to his conscience.
You have to be consistent. i am consistent ever since the beginning of my arguments, i think you fail to understand..You claimed all human acts are contingent to conscience but suddenly the terrorist acts are deemed "fanaticism" and it is not conscience which made them act this way. Besides when you describe something as universal - it applies to all meaning there could be no divisions in standards.
i always define what conscience is, are you reading kuya banshik? is it difficult ? the definition of the conscience is plasttered all throughout my posts, i apologize if i come strong this time because it is redundant.(a) Can you explain where the conscience of these terrorist go if you claim conscience is "universal"?
again i said there is the denial of the conscience, like what adam did to God. simply it applies to terrorism, the conscience was denied or bypassed. as in walang konsensya" the conscience was denied, it was there but it was denied.(b) Can you explain if these terrorists whom you just claimed acted on behalf of their "id" would be morally respoonsible for their actions? eto na naman po kuya, we are not talking about responsibility we are talking about designations in the human mind referred to as psychoanalysis which relates to the christian attributes of God. I am talking about the definition of the conscience, the id and the ego.,I am not talking about the responsibility.. 2. You mentioned "universal" good as a condition for conscience. If you claim a standard which consicence adheres to outside of human standards, it means that conscience alone is not the sole arbiter of good and evil in human acts.
I never said outside of human standards, i said conscience is the image of God given to every man regardless of race, color or creed. I said conscience is the judge that convicts the id and gives guilt when a wrong act is done..
3. The example I have given which you just termed "fanaticsm" is an example of "false conscience" which you claim does not exist. If a person believes and judges what he does is good although it is actually an evil act based on moral law, it is an example of a false conscience.
NOW YOU ARE INTO DEFINING WHAT IS GOOD AND EVIL, terrorism is evil even in muslims they are again i repeat po choices of fanatics among extremists..it is not the dictate of the conscience because it brings universal evil. they thought it was right? then the conscience was denied..because terrorism is evil just look at the muslim world they are not all extremists, these extremists fall in the category of fanaticim because their conscience was denied. If you consider these extremists as believing in their conscience and heroism to terror therefore the sound judgment of the conscience is bypassed because conscience cannot be dual in its nature and definition it is a standard attribute in the commitment of what is right...
again there is no false conscience. conscience only refers to what is true, right and good, it is the voice that dictates every man to do what is right, the voice which gives guilt when we do wrong things..outside of this is NOT CONSCIENCE.. there is only one source of good and truth that is God, when these things are violated then the conscience itself is denied and violated.. A measure which I have been trying to share as a very dangerous precedent because in this case man alone is the sole arbiter of good and evil and not God's law.
again if the conscience dictates only what is right then it is the voice of God because God only is the source of what is good and right. It is the voice of God. How could you say it is not an arbiter?
I am not talking about the final judgment in the judgement seat of Christ, paulit ulit po I am talking about our daily lives where in the id and ego decides to accomplish their choices, the conscience judging it as good or bad, giving guilt when a wrong thing is done
paulit ulit kuya banshik..
such thing as na konsensya mo? or grabeh walang konsensya ang gumawa nito, or kinokonsensya na ako.. conscience has only one definition.. dictateing what is good and right. outside of this is not conscience.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 11:13:29 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Yours: "And how was the law formulated and handed down? And what were the first laws? Why was man given the laws? Isn't it because of his psychology which is inclined to choose evil at the very start? How did freud arrive at one part of his psychoanalysis? AND HOW DID THEORIES ARRIVE IF THE LIVING ORGANISMS WERE NOT OBSERVED on how to act and react on certain things according to their decisions in their minds in the veru beginning?"
Before man was even created there was the LAW. In our Doctrine of Faith it was defined and handed down through revelation.
Man was created by nature good. God can not create evil because it would be inconsistent to God's nature being the "absolute good". In fact, evil was a choice made by God's creatures not by God Himself. Man was created as a limited being but his inclination towards evil was not part of his nature until after the fall when Man was punished to be a creature of the world.
Freud's Theory of psychoanalysis foundation is human acts based on behavioural science. Human Act should be distinguished between Moral Acts. Your predicament is that you based conscience on mere human acts when it should have been predicated on moral acts. Freud's treatment on human acts never touched the validity of morality (good and evil) but merely based on stimuli and what the person believes is good is "good".
And thanks for reminding that Freud's contribution is still a "theory" and not yet a scientific law.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 11:27:23 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Yours: "And where are the tangible things God made and fashioned inside man? the bible dealt with the psychological acts on the contrary because in the beginning the id violated that which is of God, the fall of man and even in the end, the id is used by mankind so that God will destroy the earth because the conscience which dictates right from wrong is denied."
1. To prove my point, if one reads the Bible, Jesus Christ taught doctrine. Jesus did not teach psychoanalysis but He dwelt on the Law.
Yours: "the id is used by mankind so that God will destroy the earth because the conscience which dictates right from wrong is denied."
2. This statement is very disturbing. I interpret your position that human consicnece is incapable of making the right decision and at the same time man is by nature evil. There is a distinction between man being a "slave to sin (sinful)" to man being by nature evil.
Yours: "The bible dealt with the study of the law, yes in the sense it gave the burden to man for difficulties because of the nature of man's psychology, the nature to rebel against which is right, the nature to choose that which is evil and that is the very nature of man's psychology as he chooses with his id that which violates the universal good."
3. If you claim that the "Law" is made as aburden to man in choosing between good and evil, it contradicts your claim that it is human conscience alone which determines moral acts of good and evil because the "Law" becomes the basis now.
I also find it disturbing that you defined man's nature is to "rebel on what is right" and choose evil. I realize that the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak, but could it be the reason why man was gifted the grace of conscience to transcend the weakness of his flesh or his affinity to the world to choose the divine path of the spirit by folloiwng God's laws. It is not the other way aorund where human conscience is used as an instrument to violate God and do evil.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 11:38:53 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
I hate to put you on the spot again.
Yours: "Psychology is the intangible element inside man, it is the spiritual side, the mind and the soul which was given to man as the image of God. For God created man a LIVING SOUL ( MIND-PSYCHOANALYSIS)
It is the proof that man is made in the image of a spiritual being which is God.
THE LAW WAS GIVEN BECAUSE OF THE LAW BREAKERS because teh conscience was denied."
1. Psychology never dealt with moral issues and judgment. It is a science which was meant to study and explain human behaviour. To claim it transcends beyond this as ameans of defining Moral Law is stretching it too much.
Again, Jesus taught doctrine and the law. Please share with us the exact biblical verses wherein Jesus was able to explain the nature of man under a being of psychology. God created Man under His image Body and Soul.
Q1. Was there any mention in Freud's psychoanalysis about the existence of souls or was it purely a study limited to the mind?
The proof that Man was made under the image of God was not limited to his Body alone (mind) but also because of the existence of our Souls from which good moral acts are borne.
Q2. Can you explain how psychoanalysis rpove the existence of "spiritual beings"?
Linsi, be consistent. You claimed that conscience is universal - which means everybody has it. But now you are claiming conscience is denied which is the reason why the Law now becomes the judge and standard between good and evil.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 11:48:58 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Yours: "at first it was God's voice dealing with the psychology of man, the free will in the very beginning which is parallel to the id and ego..NOT THE LAWS..THE MIND OF ADAM which is intangible was given knowledge and the id, ego and superego at the very beginning..it was very good in the beginning until man in his psychoanalysis violated the voice of God..
the remores, guilt and verdict which is the conscience parallel to the superego the voice of God..
In the garden of Eden Adam used his ego in sinning, when guilt crept in, it was the super ego which was the conscience who made him guilty and made him hide from God."
1. Your are getting mixed up now... In the very beginning the Word was with God...The Law was there before the creation of Man.
In Genesis, God gave man dominion (authority based from Law) over the world. And God also gave instructions to Man (the Law again) which defines the line between what is good and evil. Man was tempted and gave in to his limited state and commited sin by using his free will and not because of psychoanalysis.
It was both Adam's intellect and free will which was used to commit the moral act of sin. To say that Adam acted on mere behavioural stimuli does not add up to his moral accountability of his actions.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 12:00:48 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Your predicament:
1 Yours: "i will say it again conscience is the only one which dictates man to do what is right from wrong because it is the voice of God..
apart from that are just merely dictates from other theories confusing every individual toa ccept this truth.
conscience is the only one which dictates man that which is good and right..
anyone can bypass his conscience, like what Adam did. It was a very ideal place in eden yet the id prevailed and when he sinned guilt gave him remorse so that he hid from God after the sin.."
2 Yours: "THE LAW WAS GIVEN BECAUSE OF THE LAW BREAKERS because the conscience was denied."
Why claim the existence of Laws for the "law breakers" if conscience alone which would dictate good and evil?
If conscience alone dictates man to commit good and evil, what is the relevance of doctrine in man? Why did St. Paul just teach the psychoanalysis of man's conscience and disregard faith and doctrine?
3 Yours: "TERRORISM IS FOR EXTREMISTS AND FANATICS, BECAUSE THE MUSLIMS ARE DIVIDED WITHIN THEMSELVES, they bomb each other as well, conscience is not responsible for that because it deviates from its own definition as the voice which dictates that which is only for universal good. READ BACK kuya banshik.."
I did read back. If you claim conscience is not responsible for the terrorist acts...can you explain who and what is responsible then??? You calimed that all human acts acted upon conscience which everybody has, and now you are claiming that "terrorists" are not responsible because they just choose evil instead of good.
Is conscience only a facility to do good?
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 12:17:31 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Yours: "no, conscience dictates only to that which is good because it is the judge of the id and ego, decision lies in the id with ego as accomplice, the act is then categorized by the conscience as good or evil dictating man towards good but once evil is accomplished by the id, the conscience was denied giving guilt to the crime committed afterwards example is Adam and Eve...... "
When we say conscience is a faculty which allows man to discern between good and evil, it means that a perverted belief (i.e. like fanaticism) can create a conscience which compels man to do "evil" and judge it as a "moral good" (no guilt whatsoever). This is possible because man is limited (can err) and there is no moral standard (the Law, Doctrine) which would allow man to correct himself.
Conscience can not be limited to a faculty of doing good alone because how can one distinguish between good and evil if a person uses a conscience that sees "good" alone.
Yours: "again i said there is the denial of the conscience, like what adam did to God. simply it applies to terrorism, the conscience was denied or bypassed. as in walang konsensya" the conscience was denied, it was there but it was denied."
"NOW YOU ARE INTO DEFINING WHAT IS GOOD AND EVIL, terrorism is evil even in muslims they are again i repeat po choices of fanatics among extremists..it is not the dictate of the conscience because it brings universal evil. they thought it was right? then the conscience was denied..because terrorism is evil just look at the muslim world they are not all extremists, these extremists fall in the category of fanaticim because their conscience was denied. If you consider these extremists as believing in their conscience and heroism to terror therefore the sound judgment of the conscience is bypassed because conscience cannot be dual in its nature and definition it is a standard attribute in the commitment of what is right... "
You claimed denial of conscience was the source of the terrorist's acts. But is it not that fanaticism breeds the opposite which is by these terrorists belief what they are doing is morally upgright. Thus their conscience was never deined, but rather under their own perverted judgment that their conscience told them what they do is right.
Are you saying the terrorists acted not within their own conscience and by merely choice??? Are are saying it is thorgh mere human stimuli that these terrorists acted? Are these terrorist then morally responsible for their actions considering you just described they were denied of their conscience?
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 14:03:21 GMT 10
Before man was even created there was the LAW. In our Doctrine of Faith it was defined and handed down through revelation.
kuya banshik hindi ninyo sinagot ito: again
And how was the law formulated and handed down? And what were the first laws? Why was man given the laws? Isn't it because of his psychology which is inclined to choose evil at the very start? How did freud arrive at one part of his psychoanalysis? AND HOW DID THEORIES ARRIVE IF THE LIVING ORGANISMS WERE NOT OBSERVED on how to act and react on certain things according to their decisions in their minds in the veru beginning?"
pakisagot po-based on my response to you.
And thanks for reminding that Freud's contribution is still a "theory" and not yet a scientific law.
hehe i was not specifically into scientific laws alone, at the beginning if you were reading my position is to accept things which does not contradict christian doctrines
at the beginning i said those who are for us is not against us
at the beginning i said, conscience is universal and it goes well with christian teachings. because it is given by God
Are you saying the terrorists acted not within their own conscience and by merely choice??? yes because man has free choice.
Are are saying it is thorgh mere human stimuli that these terrorists acted? i just wanted to emphasize that conscience does not decide, he is the judge, Are these terrorist then morally responsible for their actions considering you just described they were denied of their conscience? I am not talking about moral responsibility i am talking about the definition of the conscience. It is the judge pointing at the id and dictating one must choose good over evil and right over wrong.
I AM INTO DEFINING THE CONSCIENCE.
if you want christian doctrines against science then create another topic. i am just into defining psycho analysis which is related and parallel to christian doctrines that Conscience is given to man as the voice which dictates good over evil a remorse or guilt when we do something wrong, which is completely parallel to the voice of God.
balik tayo sa nature lang po ng conscience..
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 17:10:01 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Yours: "kuya banshik hindi ninyo sinagot ito: again
And how was the law formulated and handed down? And what were the first laws? Why was man given the laws? Isn't it because of his psychology which is inclined to choose evil at the very start? How did freud arrive at one part of his psychoanalysis? AND HOW DID THEORIES ARRIVE IF THE LIVING ORGANISMS WERE NOT OBSERVED on how to act and react on certain things according to their decisions in their minds in the veru beginning?"
Malinaw ang sagot Linsi...
Mine: "Before man was even created there was the LAW. In our Doctrine of Faith it was defined and handed down through revelation."
Sinabi ko ang "law" was formulated down the momoent God willed it. The will of God is the Law.
How it was handed down? The Law was handed down by revelation by God.
The 1st Law was the Will of God.
Man was given laws because man is limited in his discernment between good and evil (Moral law). In this case it takes the form of doctrine. Bakit kailangan ito - dahil hindi sapat ang konsiyensa ng tao. Nagkakamali ang tao kaya kailangan ang doktrina ng Diyos at ang batas para maliwanagan ng tao kung ang iniisip nilang "mabuti" ay tama o hindi.
Hindi din psychology o behaviour lang ang essence ng nature ng tao. Kapag sinabi natin na behaviour lang ang nature ng tao, the nature of man is based upon the mind and reason alone. Paano mo paliliwanag na ang tao ay Body+Soul? Di ba dahil ito ang imahen na inilahad ng Diyos sa tao...
Ang tao ay ginawa ng Diyos in His own image. If God is by nature good, hence if a creature done in His image would also become good. Man was not originally inclined to do evil. How do I prove it? Simple lang... both Adam and Eve when they were created was in union with God's Will. Man only fell at the point when Adam and Eve disobeyed. Ibig sabihin, nung umpisa ay mabuti ang tao at sumusunod sa Diyos. Kung sinabi mo na ang tao ay likas na masama, ibig sabihin nito when man was created he sinned right away. Pero hindi di ba...
Freud's theories dwell on human actions based on behaviour and stimuli. If stimuli brings pleasure to the body, then it is "good". However, Freud's psychoanalysis did dwell on moral action (good and evil) because Freud do not have the foundation in defining the basis between moral good and moral evil.
For your last question... The Will and the Intellect. These determine all human moral acts.
Tao lang ay may souls kaya tayo lang ang sakop ng moral law. Disturbing kung if we compare ourselves (man) as living organisms with other animals.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:22:22 GMT 10
Man was given laws because man is limited in his discernment between good and evil (Moral law). In this case it takes the form of doctrine. Bakit kailangan ito - dahil hindi sapat ang konsiyensa ng tao. Nagkakamali ang tao kaya kailangan ang doktrina ng Diyos at ang batas para maliwanagan ng tao kung ang iniisip nilang "mabuti" ay tama o hindi.
Nasaan ang lalagyan para sa tama at mabuti-binigyan ang tao ng konsensya para lagyan ng tama at mabuti, hindi nakikinig ang tao sa tama at mabuti kaya walang konsensya, hindi sasapat na batas ang ilagay mo kung walang venue para sa tama at mabuti at ito ang tinutukoy kong konsenysa na binigay ng diyos.
parang mata, kahit maganda ang view pag hindi gumagana ang optic nerve hindi ito makikita ng mata..kailangan ang venue or vessel para ma interpret ng mata ang image-ganun din ang konsensya na tinutukoy, ito ay inilagay sa tao para sa lalagyan ng mabuti at tama na ayon sa batas ng Diyos. Yan ang meaning ng konsensya na tinutukoy ko
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:24:57 GMT 10
Hindi din psychology o behaviour lang ang essence ng nature ng tao. Kapag sinabi natin na behaviour lang ang nature ng tao, the nature of man is based upon the mind and reason alone. Paano mo paliliwanag na ang tao ay Body+Soul? Di ba dahil ito ang imahen na inilahad ng Diyos sa tao...
Hindi ko po sinabing psychology o behabiour lang ang essence ng nature ng tao, i never said that ,i was into the meaning of conscience alone as the judge of the id and ego. i ahve defined conscience from the start up to now.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 17:28:01 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Mine:Are you saying the terrorists acted not within their own conscience and by merely choice???
Yours: yes because man has free choice.
Medyo malabo ang sagot mo dito. If you claim that they did not act within their conscience it means that there was no basis or discernment if the human act was morally good or morally evil.
Your answer may also be interpreted that the terrorists in their action is not morally responsible for the morally evil acts they committed.
Mine: Are are saying it is thorgh mere human stimuli that these terrorists acted?
Yours: i just wanted to emphasize that conscience does not decide, he is the judge,
Malabo uli. Ibig sabihin mo is that if one judges, the one is not deciding. Hindi ba when someone judges, the judgement is the decision or choice itself.
Mine: Are these terrorist then morally responsible for their actions considering you just described they were denied of their conscience?
Yours: I am not talking about moral responsibility i am talking about the definition of the conscience. It is the judge pointing at the id and dictating one must choose good over evil and right over wrong.
Linsi, you have not answered the question at all. You were asked if the terrorists are morally acceptable because you claimed they did not use their conscience and denied it.
Based on oyur definition there is moral discernment involving conscience. Ergo, if there is moral discernment - it also means there is moral responsbility for those who use this faculty of discernment when they commit acts.
Yours: I AM INTO DEFINING THE CONSCIENCE.
if you want christian doctrines against science then create another topic. i am just into defining psycho analysis which is related and parallel to christian doctrines that Conscience is given to man as the voice which dictates good over evil a remorse or guilt when we do something wrong, which is completely parallel to the voice of God.
balik tayo sa nature lang po ng conscience
Malinaw naman ang discussion. I am questioning your definition and position on conscience. Conscience is a a moral faculty - at dahil dito hindi maaring alisin ang usapin sa doctrina at sa pananampalataya. Furthermore, if we follow your definition that man alone judges what is morally good and what is morally evil - it follows that man is the sole arbiter of moral law. I disagree simply because conscience can be applied wrong by Man which is the reason there is Moral Law provided by God to make sure we end up knowing what is wrong and what is right.
Besides, there is no definitive parallel in your psychoanalysis with Christian doctrine simply because psychology limits itself to human actions while Christian doctrine dwells on "moral" actions. Dito we are not mere rational animals, but are God's creatures made under His image. So there could be no point in comparisson.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:29:51 GMT 10
Ang tao ay ginawa ng Diyos in His own image. If God is by nature good, hence if a creature done in His image would also become good. Man was not originally inclined to do evil. How do I prove it? Simple lang... both Adam and Eve when they were created was in union with God's Will. Man only fell at the point when Adam and Eve disobeyed. Ibig sabihin, nung umpisa ay mabuti ang tao at sumusunod sa Diyos. Kung sinabi mo na ang tao ay likas na masama, ibig sabihin nito when man was created he sinned right away. Pero hindi di ba...
i never said na ang tao ay likas na masama, read back po, i said man is inclined to choose evil, mapapatunayan ito nung mamili si adam at eve between God's restriction and the serpent's enticements, mas pinili nila ang kamalian nung meron nang pagpipilian..at the start they chose to rebel when there were options..
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:32:16 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:35:31 GMT 10
The Will and the Intellect. These determine all human moral acts. I am into conscience as i see the relationship of its meaning to the voice of God.Tao lang ay may souls kaya tayo lang ang sakop ng moral law. Disturbing kung if we compare ourselves (man) as living organisms with other animals.
iam not into moral law i am into conscience, i am not disturbed because i always see the uniqueness of man as the creation of God with a conscience
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:38:30 GMT 10
Malabo uli. Ibig sabihin mo is that if one judges, the one is not deciding. Hindi ba when someone judges, the judgement is the decision or choice itself.
hindi po malabo when conscience as to my definition parallel to the voice of God is used. the judge gives the verdict..when you decide you are into choosing, when you do the act you judge it as one which you accepts
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:44:06 GMT 10
Linsi, you have not answered the question at all. You were asked if the terrorists are morally acceptable because you claimed they did not use their conscience and denied it.
ang sabi ko kuya banshik conscience is the vessel for that which is good and right.. it is the judge..this answers your question. i have also epounded on the muslim anguish and division over terrorism . i guess it is answered
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:49:01 GMT 10
Malinaw naman ang discussion. I am questioning your definition and position on conscience. Conscience is a a moral faculty - at dahil dito hindi maaring alisin ang usapin sa doctrina at sa pananampalataya. Furthermore, if we follow your definition that man alone judges what is morally good and what is morally evil - it follows that man is the sole arbiter of moral law. I disagree simply because conscience can be applied wrong by Man which is the reason there is Moral Law provided by God to make sure we end up knowing what is wrong and what is right.
all over my post i have stated my definition of what a conscience is, aside from that is not conscience.. it is dead or false conscience? therefore not a conscience afterall.
Moral law and God's words needed a vessel and God gave man this vessel in us as the conscience which alone promotes what is good and true. it is the judge to say a false or dead conscience? again it is not conscience at all..
read back about the human eye which i illustrated it needed optic nerves to see..
you said man is created good then you must believe in a conscience which is the vessel only for good.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 9, 2006 17:51:43 GMT 10
Besides, there is no definitive parallel in your psychoanalysis with Christian doctrine simply because psychology limits itself to human actions while Christian doctrine dwells on "moral" actions. Dito we are not mere rational animals, but are God's creatures made under His image. So there could be no point in comparisson
you went too far ahead into things which mixes you up how could you say there is no parallelism when freud's theories stated that conscience gives guilt when we do wrong you were into many things, good and evil, moral law, responsibility.. i am just into conscience and the parallelism to the voice of God..
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 18:01:40 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Yours: "Nasaan ang lalagyan para sa tama at mabuti-binigyan ang tao ng konsensya para lagyan ng tama at mabuti, hindi nakikinig ang tao sa tama at mabuti kaya walang konsensya, hindi sasapat na batas ang ilagay mo kung walang venue para sa tama at mabuti at ito ang tinutukoy kong konsenysa na binigay ng diyos."
Moral actions are based on the Will and the Intellect. The Will and the Intellect reside in the soul of man.
However, your definition of the conscience is a the product of the mind (body). This is the reason why I disagree that your definition can apply to human moral acts because of its limited nature.
I did not say that the Law itself would conduct human moral action. What I said is that the Law is the standard to base what moral discernment of the conscience produces. But it is clear, the venue you are asking is the "Will and the Intellect" both residing in the sould created to by God to all men.
Yours: "parang mata, kahit maganda ang view pag hindi gumagana ang optic nerve hindi ito makikita ng mata..kailangan ang venue or vessel para ma interpret ng mata ang image-ganun din ang konsensya na tinutukoy, ito ay inilagay sa tao para sa lalagyan ng mabuti at tama na ayon sa batas ng Diyos. Yan ang meaning ng konsensya na tinutukoy ko"
Your analogy is not consistent with your original posts. Now you are claiming that conscience is used with God's Laws to determine moral action. This is a complete turnaround from your original posts that conscience alone is the judge between good and evil.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 18:06:59 GMT 10
Hindi ko po sinabing psychology o behabiour lang ang essence ng nature ng tao, i never said that ,i was into the meaning of conscience alone as the judge of the id and ego. i ahve defined conscience from the start up to now.
Hi Linsi,
Your position is inconsistent. You claim that psychology or behaviour is not the essence of the nature of man. Yet you just defined conscience (a moral faculty) within the confine of the mind (id and ego). When you define your position as conscience within the confines of the mind, it is the same as saying that the body (mind) alone is the basis of moral judgement made by man.
Sorry, but I feel you mixed up human action from moral action.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 18:14:13 GMT 10
Post 1: Isn't it because of his psychology which is inclined to choose evil at the very start?
Post 2: i never said na ang tao ay likas na masama, read back po, i said man is inclined to choose evil, mapapatunayan ito nung mamili si adam at eve between God's restriction and the serpent's enticements, mas pinili nila ang kamalian nung meron nang pagpipilian..at the start they chose to rebel when there were options..
Hi Linsi,
When you say that a person's nature (psychology) is to choose (inclined) to evil from the very start also means that the naure of the person is evil from the very start. If your intention is to define that there is human inclination to sin "WHY INCLUDE - FROM THE VERY START". Whe you say from the very start, it means from the point of conception or creation itself, ergo the nature of the person.
And I said that man although has inclination to evil is by nature "good". Proof of this is before Adam sinned, he chose to obey and love God. Adam did not reject or rebel agaisnt God, because it is in Man's nature to love and obey him also. '
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 18:23:07 GMT 10
all over my post i have stated my definition of what a conscience is, aside from that is not conscience.. it is dead or false conscience? therefore not a conscience afterall.
Moral law and God's words needed a vessel and God gave man this vessel in us as the conscience which alone promotes what is good and true. it is the judge to say a false or dead conscience? again it is not conscience at all..
Hi Linsi,
The Law is not a "vessel" but a standard from which one can discern moral good from moral evil with conscience. When you say conscience is universal and inherent to all men - it means all men use to discern all their moral actions through it.
If Man chooses to abuse this discernment it may transform into a false conscience. This is the reason why Moral Law has to be defined as a standard not as a "vessel". A vessel is termed for something which brings or transports. Moral Law transforms but it does not transport itself and all of the sudden like a computer man would digest and conform to it.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 9, 2006 18:28:30 GMT 10
you went too far ahead into things which mixes you up how could you say there is no parallelism when freud's theories stated that conscience gives guilt when we do wrong you were into many things, good and evil, moral law, responsibility.. i am just into conscience and the parallelism to the voice of God..
Hi Linsi,
Kay Freud: Man = Body (Reason)
Sa akin: Man = Body + Soul (Will and the Intellect)
Hindi pareho at walang paraan paran gawin ang "parallelism". Bakit? Dahil and moral law hindi saklaw ni Freud. Bakit kailangan pilitin mayroon?
|
|