Good to know your cocnscience won : ).
But from where do you know that temptation was not you, and also conscience was not you? Also, if neither of them where you, from where did you know that maybe it was you that made the choice between the two?
Any followers of Christ as pissed off at other so called "Christians" as I am?
- Thread starter Love_Conquers_All
- Start date
But from where do you know that temptation was not you, and also conscience was not you? Also, if neither of them where you, from where did you know that maybe it was you that made the choice between the two?
Because I felt both sides come out of nowhere without volition to have either one. By the time my conscious awareness was touched by them, they were already taking place within me.
It's like waking up and noticing that your room is there around you. It produces some stimulus that you don't make a choice to notice because by the time you even realize you're noticing it, you already have noticed it.
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Also the reason I know it wasn't a choice is that conscience simply paralyzed me from taking the action through sheer emotional aversion.
It was kind of like:
Temptation: "Hey! Do this!"
Conscience: "LIKE HELL YOU WILL! YOU WILL SHUT THE FUCK DOWN RIGHT NOW!"
Yeah my conscience swears. That's the only way I can paraphrase it because it made it clear that it would physically shut me down before I had time to even think about choosing. It kind of hurt a little bit actually.
Also the reason I know it wasn't a choice is that conscience simply paralyzed me from taking the action through sheer emotional aversion.
It was kind of like:
Temptation: "Hey! Do this!"
Conscience: "LIKE HELL YOU WILL! YOU WILL SHUT THE FUCK DOWN RIGHT NOW!"
Yeah my conscience swears. That's the only way I can paraphrase it because it made it clear that it would physically shut me down before I had time to even think about choosing. It kind of hurt a little bit actually.
There are some things one do or notice or make unconsciously, for example breathing or thinking, or taking informations via the five senses. But the thing is, how do you know it weren't you that chose conscience over temptation? Perhaps you did it, conscious or not.
This is happening in the same time? If not, which of them come first?
Perhaps you have a very powerful tendency to listen to conscience, and sometimes you do it unconsciously.
ok. Do you think these two have moral values attached? For example, temptation is "bad", and conscience is "good"?
Well I do. Is that uncommon or something?
I can't ignore my conscience. On some things it only pipes up after the fact as guilt, which a thing in itself, but when it's actually coming before hand I can't ignore it. The idea of even trying makes me physically nauseated. My guilt is pretty terrible in its own right but I can't even begin to mess with my active conscience.
No, its not uncommon in a sense, while in another sense it is uncommon.
For example, there are many people who are "at war" with their conscience, like murderers, thiefs and so on. Because they have been taught right from wrong, if they grew up in a modern country most likely, yet they've changed that.
For example, if I steal something, then I probably feel very guilty, because I know that's wrong, because I've been told that's wrong.
But if I steal for 20 times, then probably that guilty voice of conscience will decrease, up to nothing. So every time when I'll steal something, the conscience will not accuse me or make me feel guilty, because I've trained my own conscience so. Actually, I will feel probably pretty good when I steal, because I taught my conscience that is not bad to steal(first step) and actually is good to steal, because I get to win some things, to sharpen my skills etc.(second step).
Thus, from believing that steal is wrong, my conscience had been taught trough my actions that steal is good, because I get some benefits, or I'm not weak (like other silly 'loosers' who think steal is wrong), or other reasons.
The conscience is just a value check mechanism. When a child is born, his conscience is a blank white canvas. The conscience is painted when the child is taught right and wrong, or morality. The respective taught values will 'paint' and develop the conscience of the child. So by its own, the conscience is not by any means something intrinsically good or something intrinsically bad.
A conscience only reacts to what a person believes is right or wrong. If I believe I eating to much sugar is wrong, then I would feel guilty when I would eat to much sugar. If I believe eating sugar is very good for my health, then I'll fell guilty when I don't follow that. The conscience reacts not only to moral rights or wrongs, but also to practical rights or wrongs.
I think even sociopaths can not ignore their conscience. Its just that they have a very different conscience, trained by themselfs to their own set of values.
But when I said that you maybe have a very powerful tendency to listen to your conscience, by that I wanted to say that some people have a very powerful developed conscience. I'll try to give a personal example to see what I mean.
When I was little, I was the only boy in our family, and I had two little sisters. I knew that I have to protect them. This was a very priority for my conscience. It was so strong and so powerful, that even the though that I could fail in protecting them would scare me to death, and make me feel very guilty. So by something that was just good intention(good), I would develop irrational fears of failure.(bad and unecessary). And I've observed that this is a INFJ thing in general.
That's why I think conscience can become a 'enemy' or something dangerous, if its not properly trained. In my experience, I just had to be learned that fear of failure brings nothing good, and therefore I should not encourage that.
Not at all. In fact, conscience has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality. Conscience is a value witness, a value-check mechanism. Every conscience must have its moral principles to work.
This is a very powerful argument against "evolutionary morality", and against "feelings or emphaty based morality"
There is a distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology.
Moral epistemology is about the meaning of moral sentences or about the justification or knowledge of moral principles. Moral epistemology is relative, and subjective. Its basically how one comes to know the moral principle, to discern and recognise them, for example trough reading, trough education, even trough evolution(if evolution did happened). In moral epistemology enters conscience, how we guard our conscience, and the relativity of ones conscience. However, conscience is NOT ABOUT moral ontology.
Moral ontology is fundamentally about the objective status of moral properties. These are meta-ethical claims about the objective and transcendental nature of moral properties. The claim that God's commands constitute our moral duties is a claim of moral ontology. This absolute moral nature of God is valid EVEN IF people would not obey God, or people would not exist. That's what moral ontology is about, and its much more deeper and profound then moral epistemology.
I don't understand this question. Maybe can you rephrase it a bit?
If you know something is wrong and you actually choose to do it anyway then you are willingly choosing failure. Weakness and temptation are no excuse.
Imperfect informed choices make no sense. If you actually have a choice then there should be no reason to ever do the wrong thing. Difficulty and temptation should be entirely irrelevant because if choice is free then you shall overcome them in all cases because it is your will.
I'm talking about simple choices by the way, not quagmires or anything like that. e.g. steal or don't steal. Why would you ever steal if you know it's wrong? Temptation? So what! Ignore it! It's entirely free choice isn't it? If you're completely free to make the choice then you should have no reason to make the wrong one. If you are 'weak' then you are not actually free are you.
Yes!!!!!
What is Will?
What is Freedom?
What is desired?
What is experienced?
Is this congruent?
Does this bring peace and joy- fulfillment?
What is Agency? What is Power?
Egoic will is imprisoned. Will is free when it is Holy, when it flows without any constructed limitations and attachments
There is no fear, lack, or guilt in True Power, because Power is Infinite Love, Trust, and Freedom
some Zindell quotes
"We are prisoners of our natural brains. As children we grow, and new programs are layered down, set into the jelly of our brains. When we are young we write many of these programs in order to adapt to a bizarre and often dangerous environment. And then we grow some more. We mature. We find our places in our cities, in our societies, in ourselves. We form hypotheses as to the nature of things. These hypotheses shape us in turn, and yet more programs are written until we attain a certain level of competence and mastery, even of comfort, with our universe. Because our programs have allowed us this mastery, however limited, we become comfortable in ourselves, as well. And then there is no need for new programs, no need to erase or edit the old. We even forget that we were once able to program ourselves. Our brains grow opaque to new thoughts, as rigid as glass, and our programs are frozen for life, hardwired, so to speak, within our hardened brains."
"Who programs the programmer?"
"I am program, programmer and that which is programmed."
"We should all know the code of our programs, otherwise we can never be free"
"If I could find courage, I wondered, what would I see? Would I be ashamed of the arrangement of my programs - of my very self - beyond my control? Ah, but what if I could write new metaprograms, controlling this arrangement of programs? Then I might one day attain the uniqueness and value I found so lacking in myself and the rest of my race; as an artist composes a tone poem, I could create myself and call into being wonderful new programs which had never existed within the rippling tides of the universe. Then I would be free at last, and the flame would burn like star fire; then I would be something new, as new to myself as the morning sun is to a newborn child."
"Self-creation is the highest art."
'What is a human being, then?'
'A seed'
'A... seed?'
'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree.'
"To be what you want to be: isn't this the essence of being human?"
Yeah that's the basic idea behind cognitive heuristics towards intelligence reconnaissance. That final stage is when the proverbial shit hits the fan. I like to think of it as an inductive field assessment. Good luck pulling that off around any Fi types without them contesting a game of emotional dominance.
Might makes truth else it is not truly might for truth is true beyond might. I think that's what Epicurus was getting at in his refutation about some claims of God. Its something few can quantify properly especially when you have those stating might doesn't make right which is entirely misleading.
Regarding the bible verses cited in favor of predestination, (text from romans 9) simply citing verses that sound like they mean individuals are predestined doesn't shed any light. There is serious scholarship done on these texts and in particular that passage, and the majority of the relevant scholarship leans toward the position that the verses in Romans 9 are not implying the kind of predestination that a surface reading from most uninformed people would be lead to conclude. Even Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica gives a good run down of this, but a lot of Reformed Evangelical Theology has an anti-intellectual bent.
Choice can most definitely be involved in belief.
Intuition sometimes makes us do something entirely different from rationalized choices.
It might be a choice to rationalize but upon doing so, you either accept the result or don't - that part is not a choice.
I'm not talking about faith practice, by the way. I'm talking about the authentic state of being convinced that something is true. Only you can know what you really believe and in some cases one might even think it advantageous to justify belief in something that they know they truly don't believe internally.
Belief isn't actually rational at all, it's intuitive. We rationalize it in an attempt to make the belief justified.
Ehh, I try not to rationalize anything anymore. The fact that I can't unbelieve in God no matter what I try goes against all rationale possible.
Yup. If it were a choice then you should be able to just unbelieve it to prove the point and then go back to believing it with no harm done.
If you can't unbelieve it then it wasn't a choice. If you're able to believe just anything that sounds good on the other hand, that's not really a choice either, that's just being gullible.