ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on May 29, 2006 17:53:16 GMT 10
if u will say that the 10 commandments should take precedence over conscience as arbiter of good and evil...then paano yung mga non-Christians...
saka isa pa...when someone says conscience...it means your perception of right and wrong based on a standard (law, regardless if it is Moral or Natural Law)...it is an urge to choose right versus wrong...which is why some of us believe that MAN by nature is GOOD...because of our conscience...we mean to do good...yet we dont...God intended us to be pure and undefiled, yet we are not...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on May 29, 2006 17:58:28 GMT 10
isa pa when we say conscience is a perception of right or wrong based on a standard (regardless if it is Christian Law, Muslim Law, Buddhist Law or Natural Law)..
to say that it should be solely based on Christian Law, means we are judging the Muslims, Buddhists etc..."mali ang standard nyo, therefore false ang conscience nyo?" ganun ba?
conscience is an urge a voice that tells us to do Good...kaya siguro most of us tend to say MAN by nature is good...and yet we are not..
we do not necessarily do Good even if we intend to do Good
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on May 29, 2006 17:59:46 GMT 10
ay nadoble post ko
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on May 29, 2006 18:01:07 GMT 10
quote:
Sorry, malalim kasi ako magpaliwanag kung minsan.
What I was trying to say here is that we have to distinguish between the "mind" and the "Intellect". The mind is only a physical attribute of man. A person maybe in a "sound" mind or a mental case - but the person is still "man". However, it is not the case with the intellect which is an element of the soul. Take away the "intellect" from the soul, and essence of man ceases to exist. Thus, it is the intellect which brings an element of humanity to man and not the mind.
For example, the mind is more on behaviour. But lower animals also excercise a form of behaviour. The limitation of which is that it could not ascertain right from wrong. But the "intellect" can which means it sets us apart from other creatures. Thus, the discussion regarding the Nature of Man should not cover the "mind" but rather the "intellect". : )
sana luminaw : )
ruth:
yaaaaaaan! malinaw na
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on May 29, 2006 18:04:07 GMT 10
so how is reason &intellect related to the study of Moral and Natural Law
how is it related to conscience?
pero mamaya na...sagutin mo muna mga tanong ko
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on May 29, 2006 18:10:03 GMT 10
sumasakit na ang ulo ko...di naman siguro ako mapupunta sa Hell dahil lang sa di ko maintindihan ang difference ng mind at reason & intellect noh? hehhe
and i still do not know how it will have a direct relation to my Salvation...
when Salvation is by Faith with good works
and for those who do not know...is by grace
well is it an excuse not to know?? sakit talaga sa ulo e hehhe
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 29, 2006 18:37:24 GMT 10
ay teka pala The Law should take precedence over conscience as arbiter of good and evil as it is the Law that sets the standard which Law ba? Moral Law o Natural Law? ?? Hi Ruth, This was the issue about consistency, which I was trying to explain earlier in my previous posts. Moral Law and Natural Law should be consistent with each other because there is a single and common author, which is God. It also means that Moral Law and Natural Law compliment each other because they serve the same ends made by God which is to define the standards towards good. May pinagkaiba ang dalaw sa treatment at application pero walang pingkaiba ang dalawa sa purpose and end – kaya both takes precedence. I understand your confusion because your premise earlier defined that Natural Law is contingent to the human condition (culture, behaviour, society, etc.) which should not be the case because you already defined that all men are subject to the Law and would be judged by it. It means that men can reject the law but ultimately they would have to answer for what they did whether they acknowledge the Law or not - since Natural Law is contingent with God’s design and conditions. If Natural Law is under God’s design and Truth, it also means it can never be contingent to man’s own definition. Natural Law because it is defined by God’s truth can not change.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 29, 2006 18:46:46 GMT 10
if u will say that the 10 commandments should take precedence over conscience as arbiter of good and evil...then paano yung mga non-Christians...
saka isa pa...when someone says conscience...it means your perception of right and wrong based on a standard (law, regardless if it is Moral or Natural Law)...it is an urge to choose right versus wrong...which is why some of us believe that MAN by nature is GOOD...because of our conscience...we mean to do good...yet we dont...God intended us to be pure and undefiled, yet we are not...
Hi Ruth,
1. The application of Law is universal to all men. We intepret and apply Christian Moral Law because of the gift of faith. For those who do not have faith or rejects faith, the application is Natural Law. And since we just defined that both Moral and Natural Law are consistent being: (a) defined by God (b) same purpose and end All men whether belivers or non-believers have a standard to define good and evil.
2. My position is that "conscience" is not an "urge" but a moral faculty used in discernment that would lead man to decide and act.
Man is by nature good because we are made under the image of God which is the absolute and supreme good. God can not contradict his nature by creating something intrinsically evil because God is all good. it is not because of conscience but rather on man's soul that we are made under the image and likeness of God.
Evil is a byproduct when man decides over and rejects what his true purpose - to serve and love God.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 29, 2006 18:52:23 GMT 10
sumasakit na ang ulo ko...di naman siguro ako mapupunta sa Hell dahil lang sa di ko maintindihan ang difference ng mind at reason & intellect noh? hehhe
and i still do not know how it will have a direct relation to my Salvation...
when Salvation is by Faith with good works
and for those who do not know...is by grace
well is it an excuse not to know?? sakit talaga sa ulo e hehhe
Hi Ruth,
It takes time to understand. Even in my case, I end up getting confused at times.
Personally, not knowing the nature of man is not a precept of salvation. What is more important is knowing who Jesus Christ is and following what he thaught us is more important.
It is not an excuse not to know if knowledge would allow us to undertand God more thorugh His doctrine. Kailangan ito para hindi malinlang ang tao...
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 29, 2006 18:58:24 GMT 10
sa wakas nagkaintindihan din..sa tingin ko talaga pareho lang kayo ng paniniwala ni Linsi.. (about conscience)
Hi Ruth,
I really do not have a conclusive answer to this because we have different premise and positions on conscience.
One fundamental difference is that I have to subscribe my definition to the context of Law, while Linsi's position is to define conscience within the confines of man alone (which refers to the lengthy discussion on psychoanalysis).
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on May 29, 2006 18:59:28 GMT 10
READ MODE MUNA....
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 29, 2006 19:39:20 GMT 10
sa wakas nagkaintindihan din..sa tingin ko talaga pareho lang kayo ng paniniwala ni Linsi.. (about conscience) Hi Ruth, I really do not have a conclusive answer to this because we have different premise and positions on conscience. One fundamental difference is that I have to subscribe my definition to the context of Law, while Linsi's position is to define conscience within the confines of man alone (which refers to the lengthy discussion on psychoanalysis).
Wrong kuya banshik
read back kung anong definition ko sa conscience...both sa dalawang thread..
read back
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 30, 2006 13:09:31 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
These are the reasons why I arrived that there is no conclusion regarding our positions regarding conscience.
From reply 125: <sharing my belief> "conscience is the only one which dictates man that which is good and right.."
From reply 126: <sharing my belief> "conscience dictates only to that which is good because it is the judge of the id and ego"
Linsi's Posts
Re: Ang Isip « Reply #6 on May 26, 2006, 4:19pm » hope everyone interested got my point of view here about the mind specially the conscience regarding psycho analysis
yung mali sa iba at tama sa iba.. nasa conscience din, kung ano ba ang tama sa kanila dapat yun ang sundin ng conscience nila
yung tama sa christians sa atin yun, yung tama sa mga muslims sa kanila yun so the conscience dictates only for the right thing according to what is right in their culture. but most especially sa common grounds..
na example ko na pag binuhusan ka ba ng asido sa mukha masama ba yun sa mga christians at hindi sa pagans?
similarity lang po, so if anyone would base my aforementioned posts dito one must understand what i mean..
Re: <Sharing my belief> « Reply #125 on May 9, 2006, 12:49am »
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 to accept 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.
Re: <Sharing my belief> « Reply #126 on May 9, 2006, 2:10am »
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......
Re: <Sharing my belief> « Reply #133 on May 9, 2006, 1:03pm »
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 30, 2006 13:12:27 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
From reply 125 and 126, it is very clear that our positions are not the same. I also posted the basis of my positions from the posts which you did request for me to read back.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 30, 2006 23:58:59 GMT 10
kuya banshik
if you would read back, there are flaws in how you understand my position.
when you said i believed that sin is transferrable, you took it erroneously, i have to clarify it, that curse was bestowed upon humanity due to the fall of adam and eve, i never said their sin is transferrable yung kasalanan ni juan ay hindi kasalanan ni pedrowhich means their violation is theirs, i was emphasizing about the curse, you have a misunderstanding about the whole matter i am referring which most of all the participants here do understand.
i just hope the bible verses i am giving you would be well read and taken and how do you understand Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12-Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
this is the one i am talking about, does this mean sin transferrable to you? well sorry that does not mean it,
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 0:10:18 GMT 10
Kuya banshik
i was into conscience, the voice which dictates what is right and gives guilt and remorse when we fail and do something which is unacceptable to society (evil)
i also stated that who else could give the right decision but the voice of God
I also said that in the christian doctrine, the conscience is parallel to the voice of the Holy Spirit or the voice of God..therefore it is the voice of God.
I never adhere to a false, bad or weak conscience,that is not conscience for me , my definition is firm, that conscience must not be bypassed because it only dictates what is right.
you were into moral law and culpability- malayo na ang narating samantalang nasa conscience pa lang.
I also said, that the consciene is the vessel, a part of the mind which receives the messages of what is only right from the only source of truth which is God, i gave illustration about the eyes in relation to optic nerves, parang hindi pinansin ito?
that is the reason i divided the topic into secular and christianity the one with freud is the one which reflects the voice of truth which only God is the source., therefore freud's psycho analaysis is a reflection of a part of the christian doctrine, that is very clear.
you said conscience is not the sole arbiter, i replied about free will which transgresses moral law even if it was given as a guide. but the conscience is the one which gives guilt when one transgresses.
I also said that those who are pagans and those who live by the law shall be under the law since they never heard the gospel of Christ
Bible verses were also supplied here, not to mention ruth's replies with accompanying bible verses too.
I gave you biblical verses in Acts 17 about Paul's discovery that pagans subscribe to an unknown God and Paul stated that in their ignorace that unknon god was the God Paul was referring to meaning-
in the subconscious mind of the unbelievers there is a refection of the one true God unknown to them
meaning -the God of the christians created all and his reflections are visible
that also explains what you said that pare pareho ang tao, reformed or not- ( ) you were talking about biology when everyone else is into the immaterial aspect which is the mind.
you were also scrutinizing technical terms and also disagreed by the meaning of "bypassing" which i also explained.
which in my own opinon does not reflect wholly the message of God, which gives all requirements to have the privilage and opportunity to be sons of God which is not applicable to all, all are created, the same biology, but to be the sons of God is different( that is another topic) which you again donot agree in which i gave nicodemus as an example..also matthew 5:9- blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God-
you were not reading carefully kuya banshik that is the reason you donot understand or refuse to undrstand but that is ok with me..
You are into moral law that is fine i am into conscience and if you will read back you will understand. If you refuse to take it it is okey. i would not go into jeopardizing the time we were into RF so that is okey with me at least sabi ni ruth
nagkalabasan ng bituka, i am not particular about what she meant..but for me perhaps it meant nagkalabasan ng nasa isip.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 0:19:50 GMT 10
kuya banshik
if you choose not to agree for the sake of disagreeing it is your right, that is your decision and choice, but as far as i am concerned i have given lengthy explanations, bible verses and phsycho analysis which reflects a part of the christian doctrines about the mind..involving conscience, many of those who participated here, understood me.
my position is consistent, firm and clear.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 31, 2006 11:34:20 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
1. I know what your position regarding sin being transferable or not. I am just asking you to clarify that position on the basis of what you called "curse" that Adam and Eve received and which mankind receives until today. In short, if Adam and Eve were the only ones who sinned, and if sin is not trransferable, why would mankind suffer the "curse"? Is this justice?
2. Yours: Re: Moral Law, Natural Law, Nature of being a MAN « Reply #46 on Yesterday at 11:10pm » I never adhere to a false, bad or weak conscience,that is not conscience for me , my definition is firm, that conscience must not be bypassed because it only dictates what is right.
Mine: Again, this is what are fundamental difference lies. I have held the position that human acts (moral acts) involve the will and the intellect (discernment/moral faculty i.e. conscience). If one element like the intellect is not present - it is considered an imperfect act - meaning there maybe no moral culpability involved. Thus, conscience can never be "bypassed" if we want to arrive at a human act because it is not in the nature of man to do so.
This is the reason why I was requesting we get to review the nature of man to arrive at the definition of a "Human Act". This manner we get to understand the role and importance of the elements which constitute the human act and arrive at a clearer position on the role of the "conscience".
Therefore, the moral faculty like conscience is not contingent to the nature of the act (good or evil) and should not be limited to the application of good alone. Ruth and the others were very direct to point out human circumstances happen wherein people commit sin/immoral acts thinking withinin their conscience as acceptable moral behaviour.
3. Yours: Re: Moral Law, Natural Law, Nature of being a MAN « Reply #46 on Yesterday at 11:10pm » you were into moral law and culpability- malayo na ang narating samantalang nasa conscience pa lang.
Mine: The reason why we need to introduce moral law and culpability because it serves to define the purpose of why "conscience" is part of the nature of being man. It serves on the issue of consistency that man is made under the image of God, man should comply with God's laws, and there are consequences if man disobeys.
Sorry, hindi malayo ito. What it brings are means to understand and comprehend the nature of conscience in terms of purpose and application. Take the elements of moral law and culpability would leave the discussuion tasteless - like the analogy I gave of "discussing fried chicken without discussing its taste".
4. Yours:Re: Moral Law, Natural Law, Nature of being a MAN « Reply #46 on Yesterday at 11:10pm » that is the reason i divided the topic into secular and christianity the one with freud is the one which reflects the voice of truth which only God is the source., therefore freud's psycho analaysis is a reflection of a part of the christian doctrine, that is very clear.
you said conscience is not the sole arbiter, i replied about free will which transgresses moral law even if it was given as a guide. but the conscience is the one which gives guilt when one transgresses
Mine: I realize your intention of dividing the topic from a secular and Christian standpoint. I have nothing against that. I only reminded the pitfall and danger of defining "conscience" from a secular standpoint would lead to an inconsistent conclusion because of the secular standpoint that defines the priamcy of the human will and man's right to define what is wrong and what is right. It is a total contradiction of Christian doctrine that God not man defines what is wrong and what is right.
Furthermore, free will is not a moral faculty like conscience. Free will does not have a moral faculty of discernment. What it does is to cooperate of fulfill the action decided and define by man. BTW> There are times wherein man through self-justification doeas not recognize guilt being a Christian or a non-Christian.
5. Yours:I gave you biblical verses in Acts 17 about Paul's discovery that pagans subscribe to an unknown God and Paul stated that in their ignorace that unknown god was the God Paul was referring to meaning-
in the subconscious mind of the unbelievers there is a refection of the one true God unknown to them
meaning -the God of the christians created all and his reflections are visible
that also explains what you said that pare pareho ang tao, reformed or not- ( ) you were talking about biology when everyone else is into the immaterial aspect which is the mind.
Mine: Sorry Linsi but no - I was never talking about biology but was talking about divine filiation. All men whether believers or non-believers are the same (pare-pareho) because all of us were made under the image of God. And since Christ died for us, the fellowship we carry with each other is described under "divine filiation" that all men are sons of God.
6. No offense. I was not into scrutinizing the technical terms you used but rather requesting an explanation on the nature and definition of the terms. I was merely validating if I understood the purpose of these terms and if the use was consistent to your premise and position.
7. I already noted our differences by deciding to keep silent on the thread about conscience. I am not refusing to understand you but merely trying to explain why our positions are different and could not be considered one and the same.
If my interpretation over the discussion maybe considered at fault, there is always the option to refer the matter to the moderator (Always) who seemed to have been covering the discussions with a level of objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 11:48:26 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
1. I know what your position regarding sin being transferable or not. I am just asking you to clarify that position on the basis of what you called "curse" that Adam and Eve received and which mankind receives until today. In short, if Adam and Eve were the only ones who sinned, and sinned is not trransferable, why would mankind suffer the curse? Is this justice?
so it happens to be a question of yours regarding justice now..
why would mankind suffer? a very broad topic.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 11:51:09 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
Mine: Again, this is what are fundamental difference lies. I have held the position that human acts (moral acts) involve the will and the intellect (discernment/moral faculty i.e. conscience). If one element like the intellect is not present - it is considered an imperfect act - meaning there maybe no moral culpability involved. Thus, conscience can never be "bypassed" if we want to arrive at a human act because it is not in the nature of man to do so.
that is the reason i found the psycho analysis a reflection of the christian doctrine. You are mixing intellect and the free will. I explained this in details in my other thread ANG ISIP, in the belief that you would finally see what i mean.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 11:54:24 GMT 10
Mine: The reason why we need to introduce moral law and culpability because it serves to define the purpose of why "conscience" is part of the nature of being man. It serves on the issue of consistency that man is made under the image of God, man should comply with God's laws, and there are consequences if man disobeys.
culpability is a future tense, i am describing a present tense kaya sabi ko malayo na, ito rin marahil ang dhailan ng iba na mix up sila
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 12:12:19 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
Mine: Sorry Linsi but no - I was never talking about biology but was talking about divine filiation. All men whether believers or non-believers are the same
NO, when we talk about divine filiation we talk about being born again John 3:3
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [1] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
regardless of what affiliation a man has, he must be born of the water and spirit.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 12:20:49 GMT 10
This is the reason why I was requesting we get to review the nature of man to arrive at the definition of a "Human Act". This manner we get to understand the role and importance of the elements which constitute the human act and arrive at a clearer position on the role of the conscience
the nature of man?
simple he is created a living soul Genesis 1:26
to make a simple detail again.. out of the dust God gave the breath of life, man now is composed of biological flesh and immaterial mind ( the will, intellect, conscience, feelings)
God intended man to be good, until he was tested.Conscience is the reflection of the voice of God, an image of God.. that is the role of the conscience. again you disagreed. fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 12:24:56 GMT 10
Therefore, the moral faculty like conscience is not contingent to the nature of the act (good or evil) and should not be limited to the application of good alone
conscience speaks of only what is right and true. other than that is not conscience, premises and hypotheses were formulated by man's analaysis. bible verses were given.
free will is not conscience. conscience where moral law is written will do its best to influence, but the free choice of man will be the final decision.( READ ANG ISIP)
like the moral law, man has the free will to choose to violate it or not.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 12:29:44 GMT 10
I only reminded the pitfall and danger of defining "conscience" from a secular standpoint would lead to an inconsistent conclusion because of the secular standpoint that defines the priamcy of the human will and man's right to define what is wrong and what is right.
NO,
i always equated conscience to what is right, and the reflection of God which is the source of what is right. You said that man was created good.
God intended man to be good and he has written his laws in every human being and in every print in the universe.
your stand is to minimize it into christianity, my stand was similar to Paul, where i became as one with all to introduce the reality of my God.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 12:38:39 GMT 10
Mine: The reason why we need to introduce moral law and culpability because it serves to define the purpose of why "conscience" is part of the nature of being man. It serves on the issue of consistency that man is made under the image of God, man should comply with God's laws, and there are consequences if man disobeys.
I said conscience in the christian point of view is the vessel where the laws are written in man. to emphasize, it is that part of man where the voice of God resides, it is the part of man where reflection of God is imminent, it is the part of man where only right is dictated.
again i donot believe in a false, weak and bad conscience all of these are within the scope of free will, Intellect may be tampered and influenced. Consience is consistent because it is the voice of God.
Freud unknowingly acknowledges this in his psycho analysis, without knowing the true God, from his theories, God reflected himself.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 12:43:48 GMT 10
To kuya banshik
i even mentioned about my psychiatric nursing review were some reviewers who were atheists were convinced about the existence of God because of this. How could you say the danger?
this is more of an eye opener of the existence of God. It is your perceptions that made you afraid.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 13:02:40 GMT 10
If my interpretation over the discussion maybe considered at fault, there is always the option to refer the matter to the moderator (Always) who seemed to have been covering the discussions with a level of objectivity.
I partly agree,but most of us has not been personal here, most of the forumers and i, have been pulling back the discussions within the idea of conscience, according to freud's psycho analysis which reflects the voice of God.
the moderator and the most of the forumers were objective.again it is your perceptions that makes you think otherwise but nontheless i believe that all of us are learning, and he who desires to change for the better gets the message we are declaring
kuya banshik
i would appreciate it if you would open more topics because some of those who were reading were glad about the discussions, it made them study more about theology.
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on May 31, 2006 13:16:55 GMT 10
Hi Linsi, Mine: 1. I know what your position regarding sin being transferable or not. I am just asking you to clarify that position on the basis of what you called "curse" that Adam and Eve received and which mankind receives until today. In short, if Adam and Eve were the only ones who sinned, and sinned is not trransferable, why would mankind suffer the curse? Is this justice?
Yours: so it happens to be a question of yours regarding justice now.. why would mankind suffer? a very broad topic.
Mine: Sorry Linsi, but you never answered the question. The question was not a question about justice. The question is a question about consistency because: (a) You believe that sin is not transferable (b) But contends Ada, and Eve's sin gave mankind this "curse"
I only mentioned the question "is this justice" to stress a point that a true doctrine of faith should be consistent with God's nature. Nothing more. But I would be waiting for your explanation on the "curse" and why it is transferred to the whole of mankind.
============================== Yours: that is the reason i found the psycho analysis a reflection of the christian doctrine. You are mixing intellect and the free will. I explained this in details in my other thread ANG ISIP, in the belief that you would finally see what i mean.
Mine: I was trying to explain that Human Acts consist of the Intellect and Will. If one takes one element-either the will or the intellect - this would be an imperfect human act. I am not mixing the intellect and the will, but I was trying to explain the reason why conscience as an element of the intellect can never be bypassed - because it would lead to an imperfect act.
If we bypass the conscience for every evil act - it means that all evil acts by man is considered "imperfect". Thus, man is no longer answerable to moral law. This is the reason why we have a disgareement of position.
Yours: NO, when we talk about divine filiation we talk about being born again John 3:3 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [1] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” regardless of what affiliation a man has, he must be born of the water and spirit.
I disagree on your interpretation of divine filiation. Please review what filiation in the context of faith means. Example of Natural/Physical Filiation = God the Father and God the Son. Example of divine filiation = God the Father and Man. It is not mere terminology of "affiliation or membership" but adescription on the nature of relationship between man and God.
Divine Filiation is not conditional. God applied His "adoption" of man to the whole of mankind. It means whether is a believer/non-beliver, born-again/not born again - all men are sons God. Jesus Christ died for all mankind and did not set any condition that His death was conditional to those only born again.
Being "born again" in John 3.3 is not divine filiation. It is an explanation for the condition of man's salvation. It is an explanation the need of man to obtain grace in order for the soul which is dead to be born again.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 31, 2006 13:20:49 GMT 10
Mine: Sorry Linsi, but you never answered the question. The question was not a question about justice. The question is a question about consistency because: (a) You believe that sin is not transferable (b) But contends Ada, and Eve's sin gave mankind this "curse"
sorry but this time i think i would not answer you about justice..
i am into conscience and i wanted others to answer you for that.
|
|