How Should a Christian Act?

I can't argue with that one little bit.

Ok, hubby just came out and said, "Are you ever coming to bed?" So, I guess I'd better.

I enjoyed our chat. Looking forward to more. Night echi.

goodnight

Echi--I am with you 100%--I do think every one of us is built with an inner guiding system that works as both what can be considered conscience and also, I have no doubt that it also functions as that inerrant 'gut instinct' that I also think we all have but don't listen to. It's an untraceable immediate and immediate thought-response that I think many of us learn to shut out at an early age, and I think more operate sans gut than they do conscience.

Also, it has been my experience that often-times that gut instinct is dissuaded by one's religious upbringing. I have heard it said that we should not trust that voice, because it our self and we are supposed to trust God.
Where is God supposed to be? That what I don't get--they say don't listen to yourself, listen to us--because you should listen to God.
Well, if you can't help me out with a multiple choice Algebra test
(you know, the your-first-answer-is-always-right thing?) then I'm betting on moi. Because I feel that if 'the answer is always right' then it certainly is not me, but something else.

And my experiences, with the gut instinct theory are where the theory comes from, actually. In my early 20's I started noticing that the more I heeded it, the less trouble I had, in all parts of life, and the louder and clearer it became. I'm 37 now and I pretty much operate on that 'gut instinct' thing--and I know for sure, at this point, that it is something far more alive than even my own self. In fact, at some point about 3 years ago, my life changed in a way I really have to describe as a transformation. And I never saw it coming nor did I search for it in the various ways many people seek that kind of thing--whether it be through church and western type religions or eastern philosophies. I have learned about all sorts of things, but never adopted any one discipline or philosophy for myself. I did, however, find truth in everything, but nothing that was 'all truth' that was outside of myself.

My conscience used to 'prick me' and I could often ignore it and not really be bothered with lingering pricks, but these days I cannot. It isn't really a pricking anymore, either. I just know what is the thing I should do and I do it. That may not sound like a big deal, but I've always had a life that allowed me to be all about me. I've never been vain or arrogant, but I was definitely self-oriented in a very big way and had no idea.

I think self-orientation is essentially 'sin.' It is a sort of state of isolation that causes harm and slights to others in ignorance and oblivion. Even when I thought I was doing the right thing for someone else, looking back I can see what my motivation was, without exception. I also see that I truly didn't know. And I think that's our biggest problem, as humans--even though we are born equipped with what we need as far as God goes, we look for God outside of ourselves and don't understand God isn't about us--God is love and paying attention to others so that the illusion of motivational isolation eventually dissolves.

Conscience is a word known to all, and many think it is their motivation, but I think there is much confusion between that and morality. I see them as opposites, with conscience being of the unity factor and morality being of the ego. We do what is right or wrong, based on what those around us, society, and all those who expect us to be what they have grown used to us being, and it is that duty that is not always correct. It seems like giving of one's self but it is taking, in a sense, by all involved. It is not freedom and it doesn't really benefit anyone in the long run. But we think that what is 'right' and 'wrong' on the outside is the same on the inside. We know there is conflict when we have guilt, discomfort, that strange out-of-place feeling, and resentment.

I have found that the bible is not at all contradictory to this ideas--maybe no expressed just so, but actually more than most realize. Religion does a pretty good job of hiding the truth, any religion, IMO.

Paul especially mentions the conscience many times:
Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

1 Corinthians 8:8-13, 10:23-33
2 Corinthians 1:12, 4:1-7
1 Timothy 1:5-11, 3:9, 4:1-5
Titus 1:1-16--and v15 is really significant, IMO:
all things, indeed, are pure to the pure, and to the defiled and unstedfast is nothing pure, but of them defiled are even the mind and the conscience;
Hebrews 9:14, 10:2, 10:22, 13:18

Peter also uses that word in the same fashion Paul does.
1 Peter 2:19, 3:16, 21

I think, from all those passages, that what you say about conscience is not only solid understanding, but just what you believe it to be--the Holy Spirit.
It seems, also, that the problem with those who either don't seem to have it or else have denied it until it clammed up and withdrew--this seems to be the cause of the absence, that is, the denying of it's worth or application in the first place.

Many prefer morality--it usually nets gains that are tangible in one way or another such as wealth or the esteem of other people. It's basically 'serving mammon' as opposed to 'serving God.' Now when I say that, about morality, I'm speaking of what I define morality as, but many use the word instead of conscience. Regardless, the fruit is still the trustworthy indicator.

I know, too, from observing others, that if one declines one's gut instinct and/or conscience in favor of theologies and doctrines that they feel to be more accurate of a spiritual compass, no matter how much they aimed on God in the beginning, they lose touch rapidly and don't even realize it amidst the din of all the outward goings-on and ritual, and they lose their ears that hear when they start listening with their external ears more, as far as for guidance.

I believe that the biggest 'leap of faith' in regard to God is the leap away from tradition and society, for most people. It is probably the scariest thing most people face and therefore, most don't. I never had to leap away, since I never jumped in, in the first place, for whatever reason. No indoctrination to get over, and for that I am infinitely grateful, every day.

i've been busy on other threads, so it's rather late in the discussion to bring up this point, but i disagree that everyone has a conscience. sociopaths don't seem to have one--they have no sense of guilt or empathy.

queen annie--

Thanks for the Bible verses. I'll check them out later.




That's an interesting point. I once had this argument with a psychologist who insisted as you do. I don't know if it is something that can be proven. I can only say that (to me) it makes more sense to think that such a person, for some reason, is very capable of ignoring their conscience. And, like you stated, these people have a disorder (antisocial personality disorder). These people tend to be irritable, get into fights and have less regard for their own safety as well as others'. That's the kind of behavior I would expect from someone in denial of their conscience...They ignore it, but it does not ignore them.

It may not seem like everyone has a conscience or (let's call it a 'potential spark' of the Spirit to allow for the acceptance or denial thereof) but we cannot see all the way through a person's middle...and I think that just be default of being 'living souls', i.e. having 'the breath of life' breathed into our nostrils, we all have the spark of life which can be fanned into full fledged enlightenment/awareness/spiritual resurrection, etc... (meaning generically, advancement toward eventual Unity with God or 'The')

The fourth gospel says as much:

John 1:4-9 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.

I'm not one of those who punctuate my own opinions with scripture--but I do use it a lot, because truly I have discovered (not searched out diligently for my own purposes) that the bible is consistent with itself--those that say it contradicts itself are correct, but yet the level of the contradictions is not the level that it is intended for. It is not a literal history book or any sort of technical manual. It is an allegorical instruction book meant for the individual restoration of every soul. Now, every soul may not need it or have interest in it. It's there if you do, and if not, there are other ways--we each have our own.

Anyway, I have no doubt that every man that enters this world has a light within them. If I look, I can detect it, usually--but indeed there are those that seem to be as if their insides are a black hole of darkness and animosity. Serial killers, despots, tyrannical kings and criminals of every sort.

But the way I understand it, from observing people without judging--I used to be an RN and I couldn't afford to judge anyone--is that we are all basically the same in our deepest parts--we all just want to be loved and accepted. The ways we go about it are infinitely diverse and often dysfunctional but the core is the same.

While it may seem that someone who rapes or murders is devoid of any kind of redeemable positive energy such as love or anything similar, because of the hurt and injury they inflict on other people--it is not that they are only darkness, but that there have been layers upon layers of hurt and injury piled upon their own little light inside--often I think the worst of it starts in childhood or even infancy--something as seemingly minor as not getting to bond with mother can be the first rotten apple in a whole truckload. Each situation/instance of 'deficit' (I'm speaking purely about plain old love as far as balances here) digs a little out, while each little 'credit' piles a little upon. And for most of us, the amount we started with fluctuates through life but basically stays about the same or improves. But there are some who are dug out at every turn in life--and even those, sometimes, are able to overcome it. My dad seemed to be one of those. That is yet a mystery to me, but it doesn't nullify the theory I'm presenting here.

Anyway, it is all about love--what is given and what is received--amd what is taken away or stolen. If a soul does not have any chance to receive and little or no chance to give at the start--there is a big hole that starts to grow. That absence, that black void, from my POV, is the 'evil' that man creates and is essentially the vacuum that exists where love should rightly be. That vacuum seeks to be filled--it's only natural, but in the life of someone who has no example on how to properly go about filling such a hole, the only thing they know is what they were handed--often it is some sort of cruelty handed out as being 'love.' So they equate love with ugliness or else do not even conceive of such a thing as love. In the very worst cases, it seems like the hole is so big that the attempt to compensate grows to be mass homocide/genocide of innocent people. Such as Saddam Hussein or Adolph Hitler. People think these men sought power and the power caused them to become monsters. I think that the monstrous hole within them drove them steadily up the ladder of cruelty which often is the same 'ladder of success' in the political venue. It is selfishness manifested exponentially and the more evil done to compensate, the more evil needed and it is truly vicious cycle.

Many might say that I am making excuses for these men, but I am not. At the same time, I don't judge them either--or those that contributed to their state--although I often think it is more of a statement about humanity in regard to how much cruelty exists in the world in any generation. It is the 'sin' of the whole generation, not the individual.

I know that it could have been me just as easily as it was someone else. Who's to say? I had a loving and nurturing childhood with, it seems, most of the 'right' ingredients. And I was adopted at 2 months old--what if I had not been adopted, ever?

I have a friend, also adopted, whose father, a preacher, is cruel and unloving to the point of wanting to have his own daughter in law killed some crazy reason ( I can't recall! something about their child and the fact that that son was in prison) (not my friend but his brother). He told my friend he would pay him 10,000 dollars to do it--before the other one got out of prison and came home. He didn't, of course. But if he had ever asked if he was loved, as a child, his dad would shout at him 'you have food and shelter--what more do you want?' And his adopted dad was actually blood kin, his real mother's brother! My friend has some issues--major ones, which he has no idea of--but that cruelty exhibits itself by extension through him to his family.

And so I cannot say that I am in more possession of something causing me to do good for others and another is not--I just had the chance to let my light shine and grow. It seems to be what 'fate' is--the luck of the draw in life's version of 5 card stud, maybe. I got dealt a hand with one card short of a full house but others were dealt nothing but odd cards.

And also, I know that it is what we do with what we're given that is more important than anything--love can indeed fill the biggest hole. But that is why the consciences of those who listen prick them not toward 'what is right for me' but toward 'what is good for others' and those two things are not always synonymous in modern society. The only way to get the whole world lit up is by shining up those dark lanterns that have soot from hurt and pain blackening them. Of course, we can't always risk certain things in certain cases--but that is not being cruel--distance is not damage. Some people must surely just start anew next time after a certain point in the cycle. But yet it is our responsibility to serve instead of to preserve self.

But 'morality' seems to be only about a more relative good rather than a impartial and collective good. It may be moral and the only possible outcome for Saddam Hussein to go on trial for what he's done--but I'm glad to have no part in it. Who am I to judge him? And who is he to kill so many people for his own agenda? It's a terrible situation we've created ourselves.

His sons were monsters in the making, too--worse than Saddam, and that's what I think it means when it says 'the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons.'

Saddam Hussein, from what I've read, had a mother who attempted to kill herself when he was still inside her--because his father died soldiering. And so his uncle became a father figure--who had Saddam killing a man at the age of 10. Regardless of the circumstances and details--how can a 10 year old boy cope with taking a human life, not in self-defense? That's unspeakable, IMO.

Yet life is life, good and bad, and basically a bitch. It's our education.

But yet I think none of us come equipped with any extra or lacking components when we start, there are multiple factors involved.
If God does not play favorites, then God does not play favorites.
I do not think He does.

I ran across the answer to
Momma's question, just now:

I believe their words should be filled with Love, but at the same time I think they should be bold and stand firm.

You can't let anyone walk all over your faith, or even think they can. We, as Christians, esp. now need to stand tall and head on!

That's what I believe.

Wanda

queen annie,

That was beautiful. Yes, I agree. That is what we should be like. But, I also agree with Wanda about standing up for what we believe. I just think we can stand up for our faith with love!

echi, sociopaths have no emotional reaction to the crimes they commit, aside from the satisfaction of actually carrying out the act. If I remember correctly, their brains function differently than a "normal" persons brain. So technically, I'd say they were mentally disturbed beyond their own control.

Perhaps that is the same concept as 'unclean spirits'...

If something is already in residency, then the conscience/holy spirit would have no place to dwell and therefore couldn't contribute in such a person's situation.

Just speculation.

Just me--but in my belief system, the Holy Spirit isn't barred by anything other than the person's desire.

I agree Lady Lash. The only thing that stops the Holy Spirit is ourself.

I don't think that's true. Like I mentioned earlier, they are usually very irritable and unhappy people. That they do not associate their emotions with their actions might be closer to the root of the problem. I agree that they are mentally disturbed, but to deny that they have a conscience (something that is innate, not learned) is IMO a stretch.

echi,

What about Ted Bundy?

Momma--

What about Ted Bundy?

Ted Bundy was a sociopath. He smiled most of the time. He was perfectly happy with the way he was.

Anyone that knew him would never have called him irritable or unhappy.

I'm sorry. I don't know enough about him, so I can't say. But I will look into it and get back to you (whatever I find out).

You would be incorrect, then.

Psycho/sociopaths do not have consciences. Nor are they capable of higher emotions, although they can learn to mimic them. They actually study people to learn how to act in various situations.