 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
 
|
|
| Author |
Replies |
Total Replies: 5 |
|
|
Topic: Conscience...The spritual approach  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 13 Sep 2009 08:22 am | #1 |
|
|
|
Whatever we do or say, is directly or indirectly controlled by our mind and heart. From these two sensitive parts of a human body, arises a most important aspect i.e., one's conscience. Again it's up to one's mind and heart coordination that how he/she percieves his/her internal or external world. Should I do this or not? Isn't or is it aganist my ethics? Queries like these always make us to think for awhile. But, still it depends upon one's psychological approach, including his needs and wants. Also one's vision or attitude towards his sorroundings is also accountable. However, generally its base lies on the grounds of one's nature and nurture...
what do you think?
...........................................................
|
| |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 Nov 2009 11:42 am | #4 |
|
|
|
Cardinal Principle to read "A man is not guilty of a criminal act UNLESS THE SPIRIT BE ALSO………..
The Christian idea of guilt involves three elements: responsibility (Greek aitia, "cause," depending upon a man's real freedom), blameworthiness (Latin reatus culpae, depending upon a man's knowledge and purpose) and the obligation to make good through punishment or compensation (Latin reatus poenae; compare Greek opheilema, "debt," Mt 6:12). In other words, in thinking of guilt we ask the questions of cause, motive and consequence, the central idea being that of the personal blameworthiness of the sinner. Not all of this is found at once in the Old Testament. The idea of guilt corresponds to that of righteousness or holiness. When these are ritual and legal, instead of ethical and spiritual, they will determine similarly the idea of guilt. This legalistic and ritualistic conception of guilt may first be noted. Personal blameworthiness does not need to be present. "If any one sin, and do any of the things which Yahweh hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity" (Lev 5:17). The man is guilty, not because he might or should have known; he may merely have touched unwittingly the body of an unclean beast (Lev 5:2,3). The guilt is here because the law has been transgressed and must be made good (compare Lev 5:15,16; 4:2,3,13,12,27; see also 5:2,3,4,17).Moreover, the element of personal responsibility is sometimes lacking where guilt is assigned.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 Nov 2009 03:27 pm | #5 |
|
|
|
England is Offcially a Christian Country and the Church of England is the Official Church. The Queen is the Head of the State - "Fount of Justice" and also the "Head of the C of E". As a matter of interest ONLY Christians could give sworn evidence in English courts until late 19th Century (I believe) . This was because it was maintained that if a person did not accept the authority of the "Gospels" then he could not tell the truth. In the 19th century the concept of STRICT LIABILITY was created in Criminal and Quasi Criminal (Civil Contempt and Torts) as also in USA. STRICT LIABILITY corresponds with the Hindu DOCTRINE of KARMA. While Strict Liability ignores the concept of "Divine Justice" in a MONOTHEIST CONCEPT - Doctrine of Karma relies on DIVINE JUSTICE Thru PANTHEIST BELIEFS. Strict Liability is defined as quoted: " In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"  does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act" ) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.
Strict liability laws were created in the 19th century. The creation of strict liability offences meant that convictions were increased. Common strict liability offences today include the selling of alcohol to underage persons. These laws are applied in regulatory offences enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon conviction, "
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you know that right upto the end of the 2nd world war (1951) many People who called themselves SPIRITUALISTS" were PROSECUTED UNDER THE Witchcraft Act 1735 which colud impose CAPITAL PUNISHMENT on anyone claiming to be able to communicate with the SPIRIT of a dead person by USING THEIR MIND AS A MEDIUM. Shiv Sena and Muthlalik are probably not aware of this or they would have been crying for capital punishment for guys and gals attempting to get spiritual knowledge of each other in public by claiming to be "soul mates" 
So now translate the Portuguese into French by bringing in ESPRIT for MIND and SPIRIT to solve this riddle.