|
Post by rafael on Sept 28, 2006 2:31:17 GMT 10
stupidity is a lack of intelligence while selfishness is stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others.
Between the two a lack of intelligence is not a fault .
but he who knows not that he knows not is different.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 29, 2006 4:29:35 GMT 10
Did "God" intend man to fail? When talking about” falling short” He knows man will fail. Again, you said, “moral code’ as a guide to close the gap,but in reality man cannot do that.There is an implication of putting the burden on "failures" which is unjustifiable.
If you are following closely to what I have been posting, you would have not missed the verification of the term itself.
RE: p. 9, “Sharing my belief”, 9/27/6, 8:31 am In order not to perish does not necessarily mean one being is perfect; That is why I have to use the closing the gaps term as in to the nearness of things.
In reality, man can always do that, trying to be near as possible to God and His Moral Absolutes. And somehow passes such failures near as possible to almost being perfect. The burden of implication is not on one’s failures but on the man himself for the simple reason that we humans are not self-actualized
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 29, 2006 4:37:40 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 29, 2006 5:05:48 GMT 10
We cannot deny the fact that our beliefs are patterned from the cradle. man has the will to decide later wether he accepts other philosophies or not.
Talking about earliest childhood memory can be identified to repressed memories when one cannot express it in clear details.
I am interested in studying and learning but not overlooking reasons or logic.
Again if we agree that the source of our discussion is theism based on the “bible” you may find that moral law simply was not in effect in the beginning.[/b]
Your first two statements only enhance that Maslow's theory of Self-actualization is a fallacy. And such statements are almost inline with tabula rasa and with most atheists’ format of questioning--If a baby was born from a parents who were cannibals, would he not eat human flesh? Or if a baby grew up in the care of a wolves would he not eat what the wolves eat? Well, others may have the hard time in answering this case; but, thank you for the third statement of yours. Let me start you with a Disney(fox) movie.
Have you seen the animated movie entitled Ice Age 2? In the movie a female mammoth named Ellie believes that she is an opossum like her two mischievous brothers so she eats, acts, and even sleeps up in the tree just like them. But as the movie goes further, she eventually realized that she's not an opossum after all but a mammoth just like manny. Ellie's repressed memory can't regress beyond her earliest childhood but to what she could only remember.
The point on this as is with the cannibalistic society is, just as primitive man was helpless before natural forces , modern man is helpless before the social and economic forces created by himself - a pattern adapted from the cradle. But, do you think that one's conciousness determines his social existence? Where are they now? And why they disapperead(or did they)--just like the Mayans, the Aztecs, or the Olmeqs? As time goes further forward in time, they are now replaced by Southern Americans who believe in Theism. Though not all, but through written history, they almost forgot the memories of their earliest generations. (the pepsi generation? )
It is very transparent that they tend to adapt to the truth. Simply look at China now, its society grew up to the fact of Communism but as of late, its people are now slowly adapating capitalism into their society. One has to agree that this is a perspective view of Christian Theism seeing that mankind is specially created in God's Image and man as a social being.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 1, 2006 3:33:52 GMT 10
Maslow had his famous hierarchy of needs and self actualization is one of the stages although it expresses man's full potential. My first statement was in conformity with Maslow's first phase discussing the body needs .We were born from babe with basic needs and from these we grow out from the product of that basic environment.
It does not contradict self actualization when the person from the cradle grows into a matured individual deciding things for himself wether it be material or immaterial.
I donot find any contradictions to your statements only the fact that moral law simply was not in effect in the beginning.
If you would study that carefully we would arrive to a common understanding of my claims.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 1, 2006 18:09:02 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Oct 1, 2006 18:12:41 GMT 10
makasingit nga po mga gents
as far as i can remember na daanan namin ni kuya banshik at ruth ang discusisons na to.. about moral law which was handed down only in the time of moses.. lengthy discussions..
kuya banshik was reiterating it was evident eversince the time of creation..
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 3, 2006 3:59:09 GMT 10
makasingit nga po mga gents
as far as i can remember na daanan namin ni kuya banshik at ruth ang discusisons na to.. about moral law which was handed down only in the time of moses.. lengthy discussions..
kuya banshik was reiterating it was evident eversince the time of creation..
In my POV, moral law was created because there was a need for it.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 3, 2006 4:16:26 GMT 10
So, you did a research on Maslow as I led you into it According to him, only few people are self-actualized. Why only few people? And I'm pretty sure you are not included in his list of self-actualized people or else you should be in the likes of Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and other notables. Self actualization refers to the person in touch with his inherent goodness. And if it's only few are S.A., then lots of people are inherently evil which is in accordance to religious doctrine How about the situation in a canniblaistic society from the cradle? Where is the inherent goodness? Why they disappeared and replaced by monotheistic societies as is with the people of Latin America? Thus, you and me are both inherently evil
The problem is, is that Atheist Psychology is far from scientific because atheists keep in continuing to restructure their definition of the new science in an effort to inlcude only its psychology and exclude religion. It is unlikely atheist will ever succeed, since their psychology requires more leaps of faith than most religions.
The good thing about replying later is a time to study and learn but you did not lead me to research about Maslow, because his theory of hierarchy of needs run through basic learnings in any university.
If i am not self actualized, then are you? Even the likes of Einstein would not fit in an absolute standard as what you said because again they are imperfect, as what i think.
Cannibalism is one form of social trait in the past, but man when in danger and threatened would turn to cannibalism themselves for life and self preservation.
The problem is, is that Atheist Psychology is far from scientific because atheists keep in continuing to restructure their definition of the new science in an effort to inlcude only its psychology and exclude religion. It is unlikely atheist will ever succeed, since their psychology requires more leaps of faith than most religions.
If hard science approves atheism then atheism supported life itself. If Atheism keeps in restructuring it proves that man is heading to improve our form of living in terms of discoveries and knowledge as what happens to science and medicine in forms of innovations and advancements.
Religion is commonly termed as a form of society's cancer. If atheism is a faliure then man can simply admit that he is because religion did not help him either.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 3, 2006 12:18:52 GMT 10
The good thing about replying later is a time to study and learn but you did not lead me to research about Maslow, because his theory of hierarchy of needs run through basic learnings in any university.
In any university you say? I do not know where or what university you came from but as I have previously stated, Atheist Psychology is far from scientific if one is to rely on Maslow's suggestions of Self Actualization
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 3, 2006 12:33:35 GMT 10
If i am not self actualized, then are you? Even the likes of Einstein would not fit in an absolute standard as what you said because again they are imperfect, as what i think.
Cannibalism is one form of social trait in the past, but man when in danger and threatened would turn to cannibalism themselves for life and self preservation.
Yup, I am not a self-actualized human being, coz I do not have the innate goodness in me when I was born It is the theistic belief that mankind are inherently evil Thus, the fallacy of your admonished psychology which percieves self-actualized man as the final authority for ethics is valid. Valid in a way of being far fetched
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 3, 2006 13:00:29 GMT 10
If hard science approves atheism then atheism supported life itself.
Just look at the Great USSR, it went broke and with the help of a theistic society its people survive the inevitable - death. Look at China now, they are accepting capitalism co'z its people learnt the mistakes and inabilities of socialism and communism What has been proven is that most of the theories of atheism are nothing but fatal mistakes for manking to believed in Tell me can you stay and live in NORTH Korea for the rest of your life? I doubt that
of If Atheism keeps in restructuring it proves that man is heading to improve our form of living in terms of discoveries and knowledge as what happens to science and medicine in forms of innovations and advancements.
Religion is commonly termed as a form of society's cancer. If atheism is a faliure then man can simply admit that he is because religion did not help him either.
If you are really into these things, you may have seen researches that to most physicists and bio-genz, the closer they were into their theories and applications, the closer they are of knowing God. Do you know why atheist keeps on modifying his theory about evolution? Because he can not get away with the intelligent design of the code of life I say, keep on reading things out of those antiquated articles
|
|
migy
Moderator
moderator in his designated rooms
Posts: 2,544
|
Post by migy on Oct 4, 2006 2:05:38 GMT 10
Basa basa muna, talagang wala pa akong time. Tuluy lang
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 4, 2006 4:28:37 GMT 10
In any university you say? I do not know where or what university you came from but as I have previously stated, Atheist Psychology is far from scientific if one is to rely on Maslow's suggestions of Self Actualization
A university diploma includes in its curriculum liberal arts and psychology. Where there is psychology there is Maslow's Theory.
Atheists are considered skeptics, I have mentioned that skepticism could be beneficial if properly guided and triggered, the good thing in skepticism is that it can be a vehicle to common sense. Maslow's theory on self-actualization is a skeptic's version of humanism.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 4, 2006 4:39:16 GMT 10
I never said self actualized man is the final authority to ethics. Declarations of such did not come from me. You were the one teaching that man can close the gap by moral ethics "para hindi tayo mawalay sa kanya" thus implying that man can do it by himself.
I said man is on a deprived state. What i am trying to say is to put the burden of responsibility to someone who is not deprived.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 4, 2006 4:52:20 GMT 10
Just look at the Great USSR, it went broke and with the help of a theistic society its people survive the inevitable - death. Look at China now, they are accepting capitalism co'z its people learnt the mistakes and inabilities of socialism and communism What has been proven is that most of the theories of atheism are nothing but fatal mistakes for manking to believed in Tell me can you stay and live in NORTH Korea for the rest of your life? I doubt that
USSR was once a powerful nation, you are right, now it is broke. China could be accepting capitalism but their very foundation is socialism/communism. Your statements make sense but you must see the other side of the coin. Do you think Russia will remain powerful had she not given way to "theistic" belief as what you said? Russia now suffered from power struggle within her states.
Do you think theistic belief (per se) brought people to discipline? Don't you see that man has abused theism to fight one another?
I donot conform to "atheism" to condem theism, i would rather embrace degrees of skepticism to see what hinders mankind.
Living in N. Korea is subjective. People who belong to the elites of N. Korea would stick to that place for as long as they are in power.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 4, 2006 4:58:48 GMT 10
If you are really into these things, you may have seen researches that to most physicists and bio-genz, the closer they were into their theories and applications, the closer they are of knowing God. Do you know why atheist keeps on modifying his theory about evolution? Because he can not get away with the intelligent design of the code of life I say, keep on reading things out of those antiquated articles
I have always been in great curiosity in knowing the unknowables then say what the physicist and bio-genz had known.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 4, 2006 8:53:41 GMT 10
USSR was once a powerful nation, you are right, now it is broke. China could be accepting capitalism but their very foundation is socialism/communism. Your statements make sense but you must see the other side of the coin. Do you think Russia will remain powerful had she not given way to "theistic" belief as what you said? Russia now suffered from power struggle within her states.
Do you think theistic belief (per se) brought people to discipline? Don't you see that man has abused theism to fight one another?
Lots of USSR's states or provinces have gained independence due to revelations that Russia's religion is far fetched. Just take a look on its economic doctrine and that's the real side of the coin China is investing in the theistic doctrine of capitalism for the simple reason Chinese people know that their atheistic doctrine is a failure. Observe HK, Shanghai or even Beijing, they are slowly adapting to theistic doctrines
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 4, 2006 9:14:41 GMT 10
A university diploma includes in its curriculum liberal arts and psychology. Where there is psychology there is Maslow's Theory.
Atheists are considered skeptics, I have mentioned that skepticism could be beneficial if properly guided and triggered, the good thing in skepticism is that it can be a vehicle to common sense. Maslow's theory on self-actualization is a skeptic's version of humanism. You can include Management on that university diploma But Atheistic Psychology which relies on Maslow's theory of self actualization IS NOT Common sense? Is it common sense that the only self-actualized being for the meantime in North Korea is its prime minister? North Korea is going broke and one of its sources of funds is from S. Korea.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 4, 2006 9:34:41 GMT 10
I never said self actualized man is the final authority to ethics. Declarations of such did not come from me. You were the one teaching that man can close the gap by moral ethics "para hindi tayo mawalay sa kanya" thus implying that man can do it by himself.
I said man is on a deprived state. What i am trying to say is to put the burden of responsibility to someone who is not deprived.
Of course it did not come from you and that only means that you are not fully aware of your suppose~d belief in atheistic doctrine of psychology I know your short comings Here's a reading for you, on page 219 in the book called Humanistic Psychology . Thus for atheists, ethics is inseparable from psychology--they say not you. Simply put, that you're not thoroughly in their fold yet cause if it is you could easily see its failure
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 4, 2006 9:42:55 GMT 10
I have always been in great curiosity in knowing the unknowables then say what the physicist and bio-genz had known. That will be good for you and your family; sooner the better. So stop adhering to those antiquated materials and try a new start in reading from bio-genz and physicist who are slowly grasping in the midst of a Creator.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 4, 2006 10:08:53 GMT 10
I donot conform to "atheism" to condem theism, i would rather embrace degrees of skepticism to see what hinders mankind.
Living in N. Korea is subjective. People who belong to the elites of N. Korea would stick to that place for as long as they are in power.
What ever happened to equality amongst men as parlayed from its sociological doctrine? Thus, it is safe to say with justification that according to such adherence, man's very consciousness is determined by a society predetermined by its economic system. NPA is another good example of this, its people are dying in obscurity whilst their known leaders are in Netherland fattening their bellies Look at the USSR, soon to be bankrupt N. Korea Lucky thing for China, Red Chinese are now slowly grasping to theistic doctrines of capitalism. I have always been in great curiosity in knowing the unknowables then say what the physicist and bio-genz had known. That will be good for you and your family; sooner the better. So stop adhering to those antiquated materials and try a new start in reading from bio-genz and physicist who are slowly grasping in the midst of a Creator.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 5, 2006 2:47:17 GMT 10
USSR was once a powerful nation, you are right, now it is broke. China could be accepting capitalism but their very foundation is socialism/communism. Your statements make sense but you must see the other side of the coin. Do you think Russia will remain powerful had she not given way to "theistic" belief as what you said? Russia now suffered from power struggle within her states.
Do you think theistic belief (per se) brought people to discipline? Don't you see that man has abused theism to fight one another?
Lots of USSR's states or provinces have gained independence due to revelations that Russia's religion is far fetched. Just take a look on its economic doctrine and that's the real side of the coin China is investing in the theistic doctrine of capitalism for the simple reason Chinese people know that their atheistic doctrine is a failure. Observe HK, Shanghai or even Beijing, they are slowly adapting to theistic doctrines
Let me study this further before I could answer.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 5, 2006 3:02:59 GMT 10
A university diploma includes in its curriculum liberal arts and psychology. Where there is psychology there is Maslow's Theory.
Atheists are considered skeptics, I have mentioned that skepticism could be beneficial if properly guided and triggered, the good thing in skepticism is that it can be a vehicle to common sense. Maslow's theory on self-actualization is a skeptic's version of humanism. You can include Management on that university diploma But Atheistic Psychology which relies on Maslow's theory of self actualization IS NOT Common sense? Is it common sense that the only self-actualized being for the meantime in North Korea is its prime minister? North Korea is going broke and one of its sources of funds is from S. Korea.
As i said, Maslow's theory on self-actualization is a skeptic's version of humanism. If i am on a skeptic side then skeptics have their own version of actualization, and fulfillment as a response to "theistic" point of view, Maslow shares the school of thoughts regarding humanistic psychology dealing on hierarchy of human needs through qualitative research. Humanism rose to power when man learned to live by the application of hard science and its inventions.
It is much better if you could present your part on a more constructive view and not just concentrate on North korea if your intention is to introduce the theistic foundations specially on self-actualization and prove its superiority in contrast with humanism in particular.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 5, 2006 3:10:40 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 5, 2006 3:18:27 GMT 10
[/size][/b] [/quote]
Are men equal? Capitalism is a sucker , globalization is one of its tentacles, this is more confusing to society .
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 6, 2006 6:18:21 GMT 10
A university diploma includes in its curriculum liberal arts and psychology. Where there is psychology there is Maslow's Theory.
Atheists are considered skeptics, I have mentioned that skepticism could be beneficial if properly guided and triggered, the good thing in skepticism is that it can be a vehicle to common sense. Maslow's theory on self-actualization is a skeptic's version of humanism. You can include Management on that university diploma But Atheistic Psychology which relies on Maslow's theory of self actualization IS NOT Common sense? Is it common sense that the only self-actualized being for the meantime in North Korea is its prime minister? North Korea is going broke and one of its sources of funds is from S. Korea.
As i said, Maslow's theory on self-actualization is a skeptic's version of humanism. If i am on a skeptic side then skeptics have their own version of actualization, and fulfillment as a response to "theistic" point of view, Maslow shares the school of thoughts regarding humanistic psychology dealing on hierarchy of human needs through qualitative research. Humanism rose to power when man learned to live by the application of hard science and its inventions.
It is much better if you could present your part on a more constructive view and not just concentrate on North korea if your intention is to introduce the theistic foundations specially on self-actualization and prove its superiority in contrast with humanism in particular.
Perhaps, you can explain on why there are only a few self-actualized being? And if is only few then Maslow's hierarchy of needs can not form a society with self-actualized people in it. Can you name at least name one society that is self-actualized?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 6, 2006 6:26:33 GMT 10
[/size][/b] [/quote]
Are men equal? Capitalism is a sucker , globalization is one of its tentacles, this is more confusing to society .[/quote]
Man is unique amongst each other. If capitalism is a sucker, then Shanghai, Beijing, and Chinese cities would have not entertained capitalists in each of their cities. Red Chinese would have not sent JJQ to American soil to study theistic doctrines in regards to economy. They would have changed Hong Kong's economic system. [/size][/color]
|
|
|
Post by Always on Oct 6, 2006 6:42:32 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 10, 2006 3:03:29 GMT 10
Perhaps, you can explain on why there are only a few self-actualized being? And if is only few then Maslow's hierarchy of needs can not form a society with self-actualized people in it. Can you name at least name one society that is self-actualized?
Let me quote Maslow
Self-Actualization Dr. Abraham Maslow coined the term “Self-Actualization” as the pinnacle in the hierarchy of human needs. Dr. Maslow summed up the concept as: "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. This is the need we may call self-actualization ... It refers to man's desire for fulfillment, namely to the tendency for him to become actually in what he is potentially: to become everything that one is capable of becoming ..."
obviously this is self explanatory.
|
|