How Should a Christian Act?

Intrepid--

I don't get what you mean, at all.

echi,

In the case of Ted Bundy, he did not believe he needed forgiveness for anything. He had no concept of what forgiveness is all about. He faked every feeling he had.

So he had no conscience, then...which means he had no way to redeem himself (even before he killed anyone).

1 Thessalonians 4:16  
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Translation?

Translation - God noisily storms out of heaven, loud enough to wake the dead. Only the christian dead, though, as the atheist dead are heavy sleepers.

echi,

He had the discernment of right and wrong. He knew what was right and what was wrong. No matter how he knew it. The fact is, he knew it.

He chose to do what he did. He could have chosen to not give into those desires and ask God to take them away from him. He could have just said, "hey, just because this is wrong, I can't do it." He didn't. He knew what was right and wrong and did it anyway.

His conscience allowed him no remorse because he didn't have a conscience. He did not have anything there to draw from. An empty void, if you will.

So, is conscience id, ego, or super ego?

I don't know Lady Lash. To me, a conscience lets you feel the right and wrong. When an ego gets in the way, it blocks those feelings. Does that make sense?

This is what some website said:

THE ID ("It"): functions in the irrational and emotional part of the mind. At birth a baby's mind is all Id - want want want. The Id is the primitive mind. It contains all the basic needs and feelings. It is the source for libido (psychic energy). And it has only one rule --> the "pleasure principle": "I want it and I want it all now". In transactional analysis, Id equates to "Child".

Id too strong = bound up in self-gratification and uncaring to others


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE EGO: ("I"): functions with the rational part of the mind. The Ego develops out of growing awareness that you can't always get what you want. The Ego relates to the real world and operates via the "reality principle". The Ego realises the need for compromise and negotiates between the Id and the Superego. The Ego's job is to get the Id's pleasures but to be reasonable and bear the long-term consequences in mind. The Ego denies both instant gratification and pious delaying of gratification. The term ego-strength is the term used to refer to how well the ego copes with these conflicting forces. To undertake its work of planning, thinking and controlling the Id, the Ego uses some of the Id's libidinal energy. In transactional analysis, Ego equates to "Adult".

Ego too strong = extremely rational and efficient, but cold, boring and distant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SUPEREGO ("Over-I"): The Superego is the last part of the mind to develop. It might be called the moral part of the mind. The Superego becomes an embodiment of parental and societal values. It stores and enforces rules. It constantly strives for perfection, even though this perfection ideal may be quite far from reality or possibility. Its power to enforce rules comes from its ability to create anxiety.

The Superego has two subsystems: Ego Ideal and Conscience. The Ego Ideal provides rules for good behaviour, and standards of excellence towards which the Ego must strive. The Ego ideal is basically what the child's parents approve of or value. The Conscience is the rules about what constitutes bad behaviour. The Conscience is basically all those things that the child feels mum or dad will disapprove of or punish.

Superego too strong = feels guilty all the time, may even have an insufferably saintly personality.

_______________________________

He only knew the laws of humans, who he did not regard as any supreme authority (and rightly so). As you know, there are laws on the books that contradict "God's Law".


I agree, but that would required that he have some innate sense of right and wrong, not simply a society-imposed moral code of conduct.


So (by my reasoning), either he somehow ignored his conscience or he did not have one, in which case he would have had no chance at redemption.

...if you buy that conscience has anything to do with spirituality...

echi,

How many times did your parents tell you something was wrong and you didn't understand it? Did that make a difference to you? Didn't you then realize it was wrong?

So, Ted Bundy had some semblance of right and wrong. He chose wrong. He chose wrong because it served him and no one else.

Ted Bundy did not have the capacity to feel remorse. You don't think you can ask God to change something if you have no conscience? Can you just say, "God, I know this is wrong legally. I may not understand it or accept it, but please help me. Help me understand and accept it so I can see the truth." Now, do you think Ted Bundy could have done that?

Couldn't he have done that based on the foundation of right and wrong?

No. And unless they did me the courtesy of explaining it, I would either get "Because I said so!", or "You'll understand when you're older."


Are there no federal laws that you disagree with, Momma? (I bet I can think of at least one.)


Absolutely not. How would he even know what he was asking for? To a person who has never had a conscience, the whole idea of a conscience would be completely foreign. More importantly, it would take a person who already had a conscience to feel the need to make such a request in the first place.

Ok, I'll bite. What law?

echi,

If he knew it was wrong and he did feel the feelings a conscience causes you to feel, and he realized he is different, why can't he ask for understanding? Why couldn't he just ask, "God, ok, am I right or am I wrong? Can you show me which. He might believe he is right but he can ask God if he is right or not, can't he?

(Is that what you meant to type?)

echi,

Thanx. No, I meant if he knew it was wrong but did not have those feelings.

If he truly had no conscience, then he could only know about what some other people told him was wrong. But, he would have no way of finding out if their reasoning was more or less correct than his own; he would have no reason to consider himself defective in that way.

But, if he knows according to law, that he is wrong, (BTW, he was studying to be a lawyer), can't he ask for just the willingness to understand why others would think he's wrong?

You argue that some people do not have a conscience.
I argue that every person has a conscience.

Can we agree that everyone has a conscience but that a person's conscience might somehow be impaired?