|
Post by rafael on Jun 23, 2008 7:00:47 GMT 10
Just please try to think about it... There's none to be afraid of, nothing to to loose at all... why not try right?
I could try and try again as if nothing happens to most christians who backslide or fall out of grace.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jun 25, 2008 15:18:32 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by leanne. on Jun 29, 2008 17:57:13 GMT 10
Always, palagay ko anger is a psychological guilt, kc pag ang anger hindi nawala napunta yan sa hatred, tas, vengeance, tas murder di ba?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 1, 2008 15:43:52 GMT 10
Thank you for Leanne's answers to a christian (wannabe)
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 5, 2008 1:15:31 GMT 10
Leanne, in a way ay TAMA ka! Anger itself is an emotional experience THAT IN A CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW (pov) can be commonly called as guilt BUT in a Humanist's (SECULARS') point of view - IT IS NOT! Kasi tulad nga ng sinabi ko sa mga una kong mga posts--para sa kanila ang komyunidad lang ang masama at HINDI ANG TAO.
Of course, wannabee agnostics do not know these things except when they've had experienced sad things in their lives, they all blamed God - that there is no God within their subjected mind, thinking, and emotion which is typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in their bodies
Sana next time Rafael ay sumagot ka ng maayos naman para hindi ka tuloy napapaghalata UULITIN KO HA: How do you counsel a society if it is evil? ;D
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 10, 2008 21:03:48 GMT 10
On the contrary you donot get what i am or who am i in my philosophical beliefs. Your implications against me as a wannabe agnostics are far from the real issues going on in my mind, i am afaid that your answers categorize you as a christian wannabe.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 12, 2008 3:54:41 GMT 10
Oh yes I know bcoz you tried so so hard to be a secular humanist and yet your adapted philosophies are not in balance. Did I not ask you may times on how to counsel a psychological guilt the secular way? But you just kept on guessing not knowing how to answer correctly. Dibah nakakahiya kapag nanghuhula ka lang? At gusto mo na lang lagi ng sinusbuan eh ;D
So instead of guessing and since there is counseling in secularism as you have previously posted, tell us now on how do you counsel a society that is evil? If you can't then you have just proven one thing - being a wannabe
Another thing, is man innately good or evil? Which one?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 17, 2008 5:28:21 GMT 10
I am not trying hard to be a secular humanist, I post what i think about people and things I do not belong to any humanist group but myself
If what your theory which says man was created by god then man is innately good.
Christians proclaim that god is good, the world must be, but it is not then i claim to be one who wonders.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 17, 2008 21:34:18 GMT 10
"I am not trying hard to be a secular humanist, I post what i think about people and things I do not belong to any humanist group but myself.."
That is good to know that you wonder about your own surroundings because you are likened to most children below the age of 10 asking a lot of questions of what they do not understand. The only difference is that you are a matured person questioning things derived not from wonders but from paraphernalias of skepticism. Why? Because you submit your self into a post stating that society itself is the problem and consenting that man is not inherently evil.
Those two factors alone are two of the basic doctrines of secular humanism. I understand you are trying to portrait yourself as Je pense, donc je suis a famous line by Renatus Cartesius, the Latinized name of René Descartes with a more popular version in Latin as Cogito ergu sum.
I THINK, THEREFORE I AM; or better I am thinking, therefore I exist.
Is it so? If that is the case, how can you even exist if you are just simply thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 17, 2008 21:35:36 GMT 10
Going back to your case (once again), how do you counsel a society that is evil?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 18, 2008 3:01:22 GMT 10
That is good to know that you wonder about your own surroundings because you are likened to most children below the age of 10 asking a lot of questions of what they do not understand. The only difference is that you are a matured person questioning things derived not from wonders but from paraphernalias of skepticism. Why? Because you submit your self into a post stating that society itself is the problem and consenting that man is not inherently evil.
Those two factors alone are two of the basic doctrines of secular humanism. I understand you are trying to portrait yourself as Je pense, donc je suis a famous line by Renatus Cartesius, the Latinized name of René Descartes with a more popular version in Latin as Cogito ergu sum.
I THINK, THEREFORE I AM; or better I am thinking, therefore I exist.
Is it so? If that is the case, how can you even exist if you are just simply thinking? I am just trying to prove how weak premises deriving from a creationist point of view, that man is created by god and so must be innately good.
All things are contradictory that man created out of the goodness of god destroys the goodness.Evil is allowed and man is bound to destruction because of that narrow gate and truth remains at war even if man tries very hard to eshtablish a society to help itself.
I believe that you have read about what Descartes' believes.
Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence. "The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not he exists, that is in and of itself proof that he does exist."
René Descartes at work.Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 18, 2008 5:18:07 GMT 10
Correct! René Descartes concluded and had reached his goal: in his famous words, 'Cogito ergo sum' and from what he took to be that unshakeably certain foundation, and using the lever of logic. Did you know that Descartes went on to establish the existence of God? Knowing that he was an incomplete and dependent being, the idea of a complete and independent Being presented itself to him so clearly that he wrote,
'I do not think that the human mind is capable of knowing anything with more evidence and certitude.'
And that certainty was underlined by the related idea of God as a Perfect Being, WHO MUST THEREFORE EXIST. Furhtermore, as such a God would not deceive us as to the existence of our own bodies and the external world, these too must exist.
And in building within this form of philosophy, Descartes became the one of the founding fathers of modern rationalism as he was dubbed later as the father of modern philosophy.
So going back to the old issue, how can you counsel a society that is evil?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 26, 2008 19:37:46 GMT 10
In my POV, society will solve its own problems(evil) by guidance through education.
What we can and must do is reevaluate our values, promote a global oriented morality, and implement appropriate international laws. In this case, human rights legislation becomes of utmost importance. Yet prior to such legislation is the necessity that everyone receive an education which facilitates an understanding of our current global situation along with a respectful appreciation for diversity and otherness. All human beings must recognize themselves as inhabitants of one world and act accordingly. Hence, all nation-states, despite their traditions, beliefs, and values, are obligated to give priority to the common interests of human beings in order to preserve all life on earth. No one can with certainty forecast the fate of humanity or of our planet. But the degree to which we are able to influence conditions of life on our planet requires each of us to acknowledge global values and our responsibility for acting on such values.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 27, 2008 17:17:55 GMT 10
There you go, see it's not hard after all ;D ; and just like the saying goes - Better late than never
Thanks for the post sor the simple reason that humanists always thought of society as evil which to them mankind is innately good. And it is evil because according to one of their teachings is that people do nothing individually that would incur actual guilt.
However, what you have proposed in your post is not in the boundary of secular psychological guilt but a mere view of a Christian Psychology acknowledging the existence of real, objective guilt. Because you are speaking to people who are experiencing such guilt that must act accordingly to values. This is an implication that people must follow a rule of guidance. And since you do not believe in an Absolute Moral Values, why people must act in accordance with something to be followed
Your statement is self defeating: "Hence, all nation-states, despite their traditions, beliefs, and values, are obligated to give priority to the common interests of human beings in order to preserve all life on earth."
In your case, common interests stand for set of absolute values because in your stated post, all people must follow under rules and regulations toward a goal. Because of this and as a conformity to Christian Psychology, people learned that they have true moral awareness and the feelings of true guilt. Even how many million times you tell people that there is no true guilt, people will always know there is "true guilt" in every one and not to a society.
And a proof of this is just like what you are doing now, your post is that of a Christian Psychology with regards to guilt, it goes to the deepest root in individual person and not just the society itself
|
|
|
Post by P7er on Dec 30, 2009 3:07:20 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Always on Aug 29, 2011 0:16:05 GMT 10
I wonder why? Hmmmn .... ....
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Sept 1, 2011 13:06:35 GMT 10
copy/paste THE PRACTICE OF REMOTE VIEWING OR traveling clairvoyance, as I said in last week?s column, is not at all a modern discovery of Western science?only the name is. In fact, a good example of it can be found in the Christian Bible itself. Chapter 5 of the Book of Kings 2 tells the story of how the prophet Elisha ?saw? what his servant Gehazi did outside his house without being there. According to the biblical story, the commander of the King of Aram?s army, Naaman, suffered from leprosy and was willing to give his great wealth to anyone who could cure him. A servant told him that a prophet of the Lord named Elisha in the land of Israel could help him. So he went with his horses and chariots to Elisha, who told him to wash himself in the River of Jordan seven times and his leprosy would be gone. He was at first reluctant to do so because it sounded ridiculous to him, but was later persuaded to do it. As soon as he finished washing in the famous river the seventh time, his leprosy was miraculously cured and his skin restored to normal. So Naaman offered Elisha a present but Elisha refused no matter how strongly Naaman persuaded him to accept it. So, Naaman thanked Elisha and left with his chariots and horses. Unknown to them, Elisha?s servant Gehazi heard everything and said to himself that his master?s guest should not get away without getting something from him. So he ran after Naaman and his men outside the gate of Elisha?s house. When Naaman saw somebody running after them, he stopped his chariot and asked Gehazi what was wrong. Gehazi told a lie and said to Naaman that his master sent him to say that two prophets from another land just came and they needed ?a talent of silver and two changes of clothing.? Naaman was only too glad to oblige and gave Gehazi ?two talents of silver in two bags with changes of clothing.? When Gehazi returned to the house, Elisha asked him where he had been. Gehazi lied again and replied, ?Your servant has not gone anywhere at all.? But Elisha said to him, ?Did I not go with you in spirit when someone left his chariot to meet you? Is this a time to accept money and to accept clothing, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen and male and female slaves?? ?Therefore,? Elisha said, ?the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and your descendants.? And immediately Gehazi became leprous, as white as snow. (Source: The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version) The above story is clearly a case of remote viewing because Elisha saw what his servant Gehazi did at a distance without being there. This could also be a case of astral projection, which sometimes happens during a remote viewing exercise.
|
|
|
Post by dabeyonder on Sept 18, 2011 22:32:54 GMT 10
Tts 1:16 Such people claim they know God, but they deny him by the way they live. They are detestable and disobedient, worthless for doing anything good.
This will be our next lesson which encompasses the article above ...it is not what you think ... don't worry... [/color][/b]
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 20, 2011 10:20:00 GMT 10
Elisha inherited to abilities of Elijah given by God and His Divine Will. Being prophets, they both have the power to see the future to forewarn us just like Nostradamus did in his quatrains.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 20, 2011 10:22:30 GMT 10
Tts 1:16 Such people claim they know God, but they deny him by the way they live. They are detestable and disobedient, worthless for doing anything good.
This will be our next lesson which encompasses the article above ...it is not what you think ... don't worry... [/color][/b][/quote]
Sorry guys but I have to move this to a different thread due to misplacement.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 17, 2012 7:57:13 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 17, 2012 7:58:33 GMT 10
Okay Linsea, Here's a bit from the book on how I think teachings on forgiveness started to change:
In 229, about a decade after Tertullian’s argument with the Pope, the Egyptian teacher Origen raised this question of forgiving evil in a more theological way. While debating a Greek named Candidus, Origen claimed that the Devil himself would eventually be saved. Candidus gave a seemingly orthodox reply that the Devil was God’s enemy, and with him there could be no forgiveness. God and his church could only wage war against Satan till the forces of evil were finally destroyed. But Origen claimed that Christian faith involved belief in free will. Every creature had a choice between right and wrong, or love and hate, and the Devil too had a choice. He cited Paul’s argument in I Corinthians (15:28) that God brought everything into being with love, and in the end all would be restored to love. By implication, even the Devil was a soul to be saved, and God would eventually win even his greatest enemy back to love.
Origen’s bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria, had already complained of Origen’s insubordinate attitude. But now Origen was publicly proclaiming his willingness to forgive God’s enemy, as if this was a tenet of Christianity. And rather than put up with such pseudo-intellectual depravity any further, Demetrius threw Origen out of the Egyptian church. When Origen fled to Palestine, Demetrius sent letters to the regions’ other bishops, demanding that none of them should allow this heretic into their churches. Instead of teaching that forgiveness can transform every life, the church leaders were now excommunicating people for uttering such foolishness. And taking the stand against immoral forgiveness a bit further, some copyists of the New Testament deleted the line from Luke, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” They probably judged it an abomination to promote forgiveness for crimes like deicide.
--from Correcting Jesus
|
|