Speaking of a non-religious (i.e. practical as opposed to doctrinal) perspective, I'm a huge supporter of the institutions of marriage and the family. I believe that they are extremely valuable arrangements that yield tremendous social benefits...when done correctly.
I just read a Reader's Digest advice column where a woman wrote in to complain that her previously divorced husband spent his weekends and free time with his 2 year old son from the previous marriage and that she was feeling neglected. I thought that the answer to this was simple: "Don't marry someone with a 2 year old if you don't want a 2 year old to be the center of that person's life." That's not what the columinist responded with, however. Instead, she said that parents who have divorced often overcompensate by spedning their time with their children and that the new wife should talk with her husband about spending time with her. And I'm thinking, every person I know who has a two year old or around that spends nearly all their time with their child. What are they overcompensating for?
For me, the situation that situation may be a marriage, but it's a bad marriage, and I don't think that they approach the concept of a family.
I have faith that marriage and the family are full of obvious benefits. Members of good families and marriages get a lot out of them, as does society as a whole. Being a part of a good marriage or a good family is something that I think people should rationally prefer. I am constantly suprised when people say things like "If we allow people to choose a different path, then no one will get married or form a family." These people apparantly don't have the faith I do in these things being good for you.
So this is where the breakdown occurs for me. When people talk about "defending" marriage or the family, I very rarely agree with them. For me, that we allow people to get divorced isn't the problem with families and restricting this ability isn't the answer. It's that people want to get divorced in the first place. It's not that the woman in the example above can neglect the child, with the solution of I guess forcing her to spend time with it. It's that she doesn't want to spend time with the child and faults her husband for giving the child the attention that any parent should.
If people really want to get divorced, but can't, that's not a triumph for marriage. I think this is more damaging to society than letting them divorce, especially if they haven't had kids yet. Letting them divorce doesn't, in my opinion, damage the institution of marriage either. The damage had already been done. The divorce is largely a recognition of this.
Defending marriage or the family doesn't really work for me. I don't think that they really can be defended, especially by the imposition of external restrictions. Rather, I think they can be supported.
Rational, mature people should choose to be in a good marriage and (if they think it is poosible) choose to have a good family. They don't need to be forced, and if they have to be forced, then it is not going to be a good marriage or family. For me, the fact that, after divorce became much easier in the U.S., many many more people started getting divorces doesn't mean that allowing divorce broke marriage, but rather that these people were in sick marriages already.
Our job, as I see it, as supporters of marriage and the family is to encourage the growth of people who can form the good ones and to ease as many of the troubles from these states as we can. Supporting marriage kicks in in the begginning of the things, not at the end, and it involves focusing on the people who are in or going to be entering into these relationships, not on excluding other people from these relationships.
You can do these things and I guess you could call it defending marriage, but whatever it is you're defending doesn't look at all like what I'm talking about when I'm saying we should be supporting marraige. In my opinion, one of the worst things that has happened to the public conception of marriage is having it's wellfare being linked to excluding gays. This has first of all given bigots (and, as I've said many times, you can be against gay marriage without being a bigot, but this doens't mean that a huge number of poeple who are against it aren't speaking largely from bigotry) a central role in the social conceptions of marriage and the family, and these are exactly the people who are too immature to form or even understand good ones. Second, and probably more importantly, it's taken attention away from the actual problems with marriage and the family.
For me, big items on the list of people concerned about marriage should be fostering societal health and educational reform and one of the big issues I believe in for supporting the family is some sort of system allowing one parent to stay home with the children. These are things we should be talking about, instead revising our history so that we think that the early parts of the 20th century is something we should want to go back to or focusing on bashing homosexuals and somehow thinking that this will magically fix our broken marriages.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It's that people want to get divorced in the first place.
Yup. This is the sickness and divorce is only the symptom. I think part of what is fueling this sickness is the powerful messages of the media about romance. Falling in love is so glorified as to be the greatest thing in the world. I think plenty of wives look at their husbands and think, "Why aren't *you* so passionate about me?" So when someone comes along and sweeps her off her feet, that must be her soulmate, her true love, and she abandons her family. Same with the man. He is taught to seek exciting and stimulating sex from boyhood on. If his wife just ain't doin' it for him, he needs to find it elsewhere. And when pictures get boring, flesh and blood comes in to take it's place.
But how do you battle these things? Some "new thinkers" of the last generation suggested the solution was to abolish all lines of sexual morality--anything goes. That will fix the problem!
I disagree. I think we need to teach commitment, sacrifice for the greater good, responsibility, making something beautiful out of the dying embers. And religion, BTW, does an excellent job of encouraging these things in our society. I would like to see the secular world do the same.
As for the family being under "attack", I see more and more families destroyed by rampant hedonism and selfishness, and more and more of the rising generation rejecting the institution that caused them so much pain. Their numbers percentage-wise may be comparatively small, but I believe the percentage is growing.
Less people chosing to get married and make those life-long commitments in the first place. Less people chosing to have children and experience the life-changing effects of parenthood. Sometimes I don't worry about the world overpopulating, because if the trend continues, people are going to stop chosing to reproduce enough to keep the current level of population. I realize that is a pretty big "if" since we are still growing by leaps and bounds. But there are countries in Europe and Asia that are actually *shrinking* in their populations. War is something that could kill off large amounts of the population also, if it comes to that.
The fact is, even if we are over-populated, there still needs to be another generation. If starting from this moment humanity stopped reproducing, we as a race would die out within a century or so.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Maybe also seeking to diminish the stigma attached to marital counseling?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess my above post doesn't even attempt to address gay marriage. Oh well.
[ September 07, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
"there is no one, true way." (Lackey)
I think that Marriage and Families in the current sense do a decent job at effectively raising humans. Not a great job, but an okay one. I think that there are many other methods that are arguably as effective, and that in the future our current definition of Family will change.
Take nuclear families, for example. I'm sure there will be people who will argue on both sides of nuclear versus extended family arrangements. Nuclear families are more common now than they were in other points in history, or other places.
Communal living was more popular a few decades ago, but there is still a growing trend of intentional communities. I'm sure they'd argue that their Family structure is quite beneficial to their children.
A marriage is not the be-all and end-all of a Happy, Well-Adjusted Family. We've all seen bad marriages, bad families. I'm not saying that the marriage was the problem, but that marriage was not the solution. It's not a panacea, and I think that the sooner people can consider that possibility, the sooner we can work together for common goals of Happiness and Peace.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I agree [edit: with Mr S). Ironically, I think that supporting homosexual's desires to marry would strengthen marriage in the long run. Contrary to a gay marriage somehow cheapening or threatening a straight marriage, I think letting committed gay couples form a legally recognized union would do wonders for breathing new relevance into the idea of forming a lasting bond that is greater than the individuals themselves. Whether or not children are involved, society is strengthened when people form bonds of mutual love and support. Pointing fingers at gays and telling us we're just "playing house" (as one respected author once wrote), does more to damage the institution itself than any committed gay couple ever could.
[ September 07, 2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have seen references before to "extended" verses "nuclear" families. I get the feeling I am missing something. Are these at two opposite ends of some spectrum I don't know about? I think extended family is great! I think when grandparents and uncles and aunts and cousins can be part of a kids life, that is a beautiful thing--something to be encouraged. But I do think that the nuclear family should be at the center of that.
There are marriages that cannot be reconciled, and I don't know very much about that. There are times when it is better for a married couple to split up than to be together. But I think that is vastly in the minority. Especially if everyone believes in the importance of keeping the family together and *sacrificing* in order to do so. Divorce damages children. It damages or even destroys their faith in the permanence of marriage. Abusive parents damage children more, though, and abuse is a valid reason for the split-up of a family.
What can be done to stop abuse? I have no idea. It does seem to be a chain that is tough to break. Something that should be educated about, taught about, fought against. Maybe it can't be eradicated. But some say that the abuse that happens in families is a reason to fight against the nuclear family! Now that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater! We need nuclear families that are healthy and abuse free. As a society we should be doing everything, *everything*, possible to help that happen.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: I think we need to teach commitment, sacrifice for the greater good, responsibility, making something beautiful out of the dying embers. And religion, BTW, does an excellent job of encouraging these things in our society.
I disagree with both of these statements. You can't teach commitment, sacrifice, or responsibility. That's the exact problem that I'm talking about. They don't come from outside. They exist as potentials inside a person. The best we can do is set up environemnts that encourage the growth of these things.
I don't think you'd be able to support the second statement by any realistic analysis of the situation. On average, religious people in America test as lower on many scales of maturity than non-religious people. The best of religious Americans are right up there with the best of non-religious Americans, but the average religious American is not a particulary good person.
Oh, and gay marriage is very much an ancilliary part of my point.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KarlEd, those are valid points, I think. All I can say is that I do not feel threatened by gay marriage in the way that many are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Any of those scales of maturity measure "commitment, sacrifice for the greater good, responsibility, making something beautiful out of the dying embers"?
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, You're focusing on the end (or not end) of the marriage. Again, this is what I tihnk is the big problem. To "fix" marriage, we shouldn't be talking about "well, only a minority of marriages should break up". It's not a question of whether this is right or wrong, it's a matter of looking in the wrong place for the solution. The problem with marriage will not be solved if only a minority of marriages end in divorce. This would be an indication of improving things earlier on, not a fix in and of itself.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Mr. Squicky, I am aware of the statistics. But I am a believer that the statistics often do not tell the real story.
Would it be possible to do a study of people to find out who was actually implimenting the good teachings of their religion? That would be very difficult if not impossible. How often are the religious couples splitting up *both* living their religion?
I believe you *can* teach commitment, sacrifice, and responsibility. But some will not be taught.
Religion does not hold a corner on truth. Any human can use correct principles to their betterment. I am fully aware that atheists have some of the strongest families out there. That is because they are implimenting true principles in their families to keep them together.
Edit: My measure for saying religions are effective is my own life and my own marriage. That is the most real example to me, that if people will just follow the teachings of their religion, both of them, their marriages can be preserved.
[ September 07, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: bev, You're focusing on the end (or not end) of the marriage. Again, this is what I tihnk is the big problem. To "fix" marriage, we shouldn't be talking about "well, only a minority of marriages should break up". It's not a question of whether this is right or wrong, it's a matter of looking in the wrong place for the solution. The problem with marriage will not be solved if only a minority of marriages end in divorce. This would be an indication of improving things earlier on, not a fix in and of itself.
I think we both agree what the real disease is, and I definitely suggest starting with the disease. But the disease is almost impossible to really attack. I believe in reviving any family bonds that can possibly be revived.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You can't teach commitment, sacrifice, or responsibility.
I'm not really sure what the purpose of the parent is, except as a source of food. I hold that "setting up an environment" for those things to grow is a part of teaching it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here's a hint. Want to protect the family? Shoot every TV Comic father who over emphasises the fear, responsibility, and work being a father intails. Shoot every older couple on TV that have a disfunctional, non-loving relationship. Shoot every woman on TV who complains about her love life/body image/body fat after giving birth.
And give praises and raises to every father who loves thier child on TV, every mother who is proud of her son and daughter, every child who doesn't see their parents as "The enemy".
Marriages are not defeated by sexuality of the parent or religion or race. They are destroyed when we forget the basics--Love, Respect, Tenderness.
Marriage is a union of two individuals, not the enslavement of one or the abuse of the other.
Get rid of the lonely single hip young and bitter writers in hollywood.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I wholeheartedly agree that the way to ensure strong marriages and families is to help children believe in strong marriages and families--through teaching and example. Parents who neglect to teach their children correct values and principles or who don't expect their children to live up to those principles are in my mind weakening the next generation of their family line.
Restricting divorce isn't necessarily the solution, although I don't think it should be too easy to get one. Divorce should be just difficult enough that the decision to get one has to be well thought out and other options for salvaging the marriage already considered.
I also agree that strong families are the foundation of a healthy society and that family life, both in definition and in practice, should be vigorously defended. I believe that the structure of the family matters very much--that if possible, there should be a father and a mother--husband and wife--in the home, both actively participating in raising their children. I believe the influence of both the father and the mother is very important, that this is how the children will best learn how to build strong marriages and families, and that this is how we will all find the greatest joys in life.
While there has been much in all the years past that has been ugly in marriage, families and society, I think the strong and lasting family structure--man, woman, and children--has been the glue that has held strong, successful societies and nations together throughout human history. Defending this, IMO, is hardly an attempt to bash homosexuals or restrict freedom, and I'm sorry that it is always interpreted this way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bev, I'm on board about the possible positive influences of religion. The point I'm trying to make is that there are possible negative influences as well or, to put it another way, the problems of society are because people aren't members of a religion.
Of course, this is treating religion as a social and belief system, in and of itself. To clarify, when people self-identify as religious and are indentified by others as religious, I consider them religious. I'm of the opinion that nearly all organized sects of Christianity have introduced major perversions into the original message, but, from my perspective, that doesn't make them any less christian.
So yes, I do believe that people who are serious about religion are generally much better than the average. However, the fact that the average religious person isn't serious about what I consider the basis of the religion, and instead is much more into the system of the religion as it is, doesn't make them non-religious.
PSI, You think maybe you've misread my position?
Teaching, in the way I'm using it, is a direct attempt to impart these things from the outside. It's saying "Be Responsible" and then rewarding or punishing based on this. This is exactly the attitude that considers allowing divorce as the reason why marriages fail.
Setting up the environemnt is trusting that these things will naturally develop. In this way, responsibility is encouraged indirectly, by setting up situations where it will grow.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, I agree that restricting divorce won't stop people from having the mentality that makes them want to get one.
But I do believe that it would make people try harder in the marriages they have, rather than face the bitterness of decades with someone you can't stand.
Plus, it would make the next generation think longer and harder about what they are getting into.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Misread? I don't know.
My opinion is the person who "sets up the environment" is a teacher.
Saying that teaching is nothing but rewards and punishment is leaving out about 90 percent of what good teachers actually do.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
People need to think before they get married. They need to realize that relationships are not always fun and games, that sometimes there's a ton of stress and pain involved in them. People expect these neat faery tale endings with hugs and romance and none of the bad stuff. They never think about the wandering eye, the distractions and outside forces...
Furthermore, I wish there were more extended and strong families. Economically, a lot of people cannot sustain nuclear families. Companies should get involved. They should make sure that families have as much benefits and support as possible... Especially when they need time off because a child is sick. It would ease the burden a bit. Whole communities should help any couple, and I do mean any that seeks to be monogamous, especially when they are raising kids.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: I agree [edit: with Mr S). Ironically, I think that supporting homosexual's desires to marry would strengthen marriage in the long run. Contrary to a gay marriage somehow cheapening or threatening a straight marriage, I think letting committed gay couples form a legally recognized union would do wonders for breathing new relevance into the idea of forming a lasting bond that is greater than the individuals themselves. Whether or not children are involved, society is strengthened when people form bonds of mutual love and support. Pointing fingers at gays and telling us we're just "playing house" (as one respected author once wrote), does more to damage the institution itself than any committed gay couple ever could.
Rock on KarlEd!!! Can't agree more!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Marriages are like a great sports play. You can't just rush into the score zone.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I have a problem with saying you "can't teach sacrifice or commitment, etc." To say these things can't be taught seems so completely false to me that I'm surprised a more detailed rebuttal is needed than "Of course they can." Good people do it all the time. We teach through example, and as PSI pointed out, setting up an environment for those things to grow is also part of teaching it. It seems clear to me that we can also actively teach those things. We can teach and discuss what sacrifice or responsibility or commitment are and why they are important. We can explore methods of reconciling incompatible commitments. We can explore in a classroom setting what we as citizens or even as government leaders can do to foster these things in ourselves and others. What are all these things if not teaching?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Certainly I think most people would agree they must be learned. So something is teaching them, intentionally or not.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, I agree with you on what good teachers do. I disagree on what I think is you're unspoken assumption that there are all that many good teachers out there. See the world I would have used is "exceptional" teachers.
----
I feel like I should restate my point. You can't make someone have a good marriage or a good family. This is eomething that they have to choose to do, every moment they're in that situation. Nothing external is going to make them makes those choices. They need to grow to the point where they are going to make them.
It's not just a matter of effort, although effort is part of this choice. All the work in the world isn't going to make an immature person be able to sustain a healthy family.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So it's not that those things cannot be taught, but that you cannot force people to learn them against their will.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I agree with that, MrS. (Heh heh....Mrs.)
I do think that the job of the parent is to teach and encourage the growth of maturity in a child so that they will be prepared to have a healthy marriage. That's why I get so irked when I see parents give in to their kids so easily at the grocery store. They seem to have the idea that "kids will be kids" which I AGREE with, but I believe that it's the job of the parent to encourage the growth out of that attitude.
"Kids will be kids" is a good excuse for that time your kid threw his dinner on the floor to see what sound it would make.
"Kids will be kids" is NOT a good excuse for repeatedly throwing his dinner on the floor even though you have asked him not to and explained why he shouldn't. And a parent that would continue to refill the plate and refuse to let the child be hungry that night (under the rule of "kids will be kids") so that he can learn to understand what it's like to be hungry, so that he can appreciate the work that went into the purchase and preparation, that his actions have consequences, and that food is not something to be wasted when there are people who don't have any.
/rant (It was way too long, wasn't directed at anyone, and probably needed it's own post instead of being part of an edit. Tra, la-la.)
[ September 07, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You're right, Squicky. I don't know what we can do about it but just keep trying our very best. I do think that the media does a lot of damage though, and too few try to stop that damage.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Companies exist for one reason - to make a profit.
In this era of "maximum profit, minimum cost", companies lack the enlightened self-interest that might otherwise promote interest in supporting and encouraging an employee.
However, at the same time, the company should not be expected to facilitate an employee's personal life and/or lifestyle. You show up, do your job and get paid - the rest is up to you.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, I always wondered why a company would find it easier and cheaper to continue to hire and train new employees who never get good enough at their jobs to facilitate profit, rather than encourage the employees they have to stay on and get good at their jobs.
Even in fast food.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Granted that you can't force people to learn things like commitment, it's always seemed to me that one useful way to learn them is to follow through--to learn how to be committed to a marriage, stay in one. That marriage is something you learn by doing, and if you back out the moment it gets hard you'll never have a good marriage.
But then, I've never been married, so what do I know?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The media is simply another factor of the environment.
Trying to protect your kids from something is not nearly as effective as teaching them about it.
It's like blaming tv when a kid tries to fly by jumping off a roof wearing a cape. Yes, he saw it on tv. Did his parents ever take him aside and explain that Superman is just an imaginary character?
-Trevor
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
"I would like to see the secular world do the same."
Gah...I need to learn how to do the quote thing! Bev, could you explain your statement a bit more for me? I'm taking it to be the old, "Oh that secular world is just completely without morals." However, I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
space opera
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, but, they would be more profitable in the larger sense if they provided things like day care and as much help to parents as possible. I say that because I am an idealistic believer in community. Things used to be easier for young middle class (primarily white) married couples. The husband could work and actually make enough money to support his wife and kids. Now, it's not so easy. Now people have to take 2 part-time jobs each just to pay the bills and they can't spend enough time with their kids. In an ideal society neighbourhoods would be close knit. Families would be as well. People would be able to fall back on family for support. If they needed someone to care for their kids while they are at work, they could rely on trust worthy neighbours to help them. Parents could even work at home when they needed to to be there for their children more... But it is not like that... and that's one reason why a lot of families are suffering. It's not due to things like impending gay marriage, it's internal problems like abuse, lack of money, lack of trust... ect.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Oh, and PSI...I can tell you that experienced workers expect raises. At least, that's the way it is at Cracker Barrel. The trouble is that management, at least where I work, doesn't seem to see that experienced workers will (or should) cost them less in the long run; they're focused on short term profit, even when that means things like not buying important supplies.
They're unlikely to fire me and certain other key employees because they don't expect to find anyone new, but the rest of us are not so lucky.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Depends on the job PSI and the nature of the turn-over.
If it's a low-skill job, any mistakes will have a minimal impact on the company and it will probably be cheaper than paying a skilled employee more money with benefits.
Highly skilled jobs suffer less turn-over, allowing, of course, for the available labor pool.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
lol That ad is so funny! *sometimes sees kids like that on my job*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And Syn - I'm right there with you.
But enlightened self-interest is not what was going on when Enron exploded.
It's also the guiding principle behind shifting jobs overseas - the company is fixated on the individual profit and not the long term consequences of soaring unemployment at home.
The company is pretty sure it can find someone to buy their products.
-Trevor
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Advice for robots, you had me until this last part:
quote: Defending this, IMO, is hardly an attempt to bash homosexuals or restrict freedom, and I'm sorry that it is always interpreted this way.
Part of the reason it is "always interpreted this way" is because the right wing has chosen this position as their rally cry against homosexual unions. The term "defense of marriage" didn't exist in public forums except in terms of defending it against percieved homosexual threats. Because no real threat against marriage from homosexuals can actually be indentified and named, it becomes clear to the gay community that "defending this" is code for "restrict gay access to greater participation and acceptance in society". So, though I agree that it is sad that defense of such an important institution is so often interpreted as bashing gays, it is the right-wing bastardization of the phrase rather than any over-sensitivity on the part of gays that has brought this about.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: But then, I've never been married, so what do I know?
I had a conversation like this with my mom yesterday. When I explained to her that I hoped to never lie to my husband, she said, "You always talk like you know everything, but there are some things you can't know until you get there."
While that is true in many cases, I also believe that having a positive attitude and a plan for success is not idealism, but rather not following through is a failure.
When I was a teen I used to say I didn't want to have sex until I was married.
Now, it would be easy for me to say, "Well, what did I know? I had never been in such a strong relationship before, and I had never had those feelings." That would be true, but what's even more true is that I was RIGHT when I planned to not have sex (according to my beliefs) and that having sex didn't mean I was idealistic before, it just meant that I messed up royally and was more wrong then.
*sigh* I'm just ranting because I get sick of people nodding knowingly and saying things like, "I hope you can keep that positive attitude." It's really nauseating because it's barely veiled sarcasm and shows more about the fact that the person is jaded than it shows about my immaturity.
/rant (what is this, my fifth of the day?)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, That's sort of it, but it's more like people don't really need to learn them at all, but that they do need to be given an environment to grow in and part of that environment can involve teaching. When the basic idea is that I the teacher needs to put these things into you the student instead of working together and letting them grow and develop, then this teaching is going to fail.
There was a thread where I talked about my experiences volunteering with Boy Scouts that I'm looking for right now that explains this much better, but the search doesn't seem to be turning it up.
The basic point was that, there were leaders who were concerned with the boys doing everything right and there were the leaders who were there to prevent any major screwups, but let the boys suffer from the consequences of the minor ones and also take credit for there successes, and the boys who were allowed to screw up became better and more mature over the long run.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Space Opera, I don't think the overall message of the secular world is, "Sacrifice what you think you want so much right now when it will be better for your spouse, your children, your community, your workplace, etc." But religion does teach that. Very strongly. The secular world seems to say more, "Don't encumber yourselves! Do what is best for you." This leads to hedonism and the eventual downfall of society, IMO.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
AND NOW, for the most helpful post on this thread!
Pay attention!
HOW TO DO THAT QUOTE THING:
Between two normal brackets -- [ ] -- type the word QUOTE. After the close bracket, paste the text you want to quote. Then, between two normal brackets --[ ] -- type the word /QUOTE.
Thus, if I wanted to quote the above paragraph, I'd type:
"[Q U O T E]" Between two normal brackets -- [ ] -- type the word QUOTE. After the close bracket, paste the text you want to quote. Then, between two normal brackets --[ ] -- type the word /QUOTE. "[/ Q U O T E]"
Of course, omit the " and the spaces between the letters of the word quote. And you don't have to capitalize anything.
[ September 07, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
PSI - heh, yes and no.
Never lie to your husband - well, there are lies and then there are lies.
Lying about dinner is not the same as lying about the stripper last night.
On the other hand, I have found it very true that it's easy to say you will never do something when you have never been under the gun. I am constantly reminded of the irony in my own life because of that.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, I think you may be taking a selective view of the secular world. I'm very non-religious in my social outlook, but I think every what you said "sacrifice for your..." smacks of selfishness.
A thing I keep coming back to is that sacrifice and commitment and responsibility are beneficial things that people should rationally choose to do. They aren't things that I think should (or can) be sustained by people being being forced to do them.
With the education thing, the "teaching" that I'm decrying is the kind that says "You should sacrifice because it will be better for your family." or often just "Sacrifice is good." without any reasons and leaves it at that. What I'm propsing is education that ends up with the person realizing on their own "I should sacrifice because it's better in the long run."
edit: To restate, I don't think that the idea of sacraficing and doing what's best for you in the long run are opposed. In fact, I tihnk that they go hand in hand. The big problem we run into is short term thinking and the big problem with this is quite simply immaturity. And I think that we have this immaturity in large part because we don't acknowledge that maturity is so very important.
[ September 07, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Ok, Bev. That makes more sense to me now - thank you. Is there middleground between the secular and religious worlds? I'm just wondering out loud here. Are there only these two worlds? I don't think I agree with either one as you've presented them. I have major problems with organized religion, so I refuse to exist in that world. Some icky experiences taught me that unfortunately not all religions or churches practice what you said about sacrifice. Can we pick and choose from the secular world? I look around the little town I live in and don't see much evidence of people doing only what is best for them and for them only. Again, I'm just wondering; this is pretty interesting stuff.
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
[edit: Trevor]
But, by that, you assume I've never been under the gun.
Also, I would be very disappointed if my husband told me he loved what I made for dinner, when in reality, it was horrible. Why would I want to continue serving him something he doesn't like? Why would I want to continue cooking badly when I really need more experience?
I'm not opposed to learning more and improving myself.
If it's an area that I really don't want to know the answer to, I won't ask.
You will never hear me ask my husband, "Do I look fat in this" because I would never put him in the position to answer that. There's no right way to answer that.
[ September 07, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree that if somebody is forced to sacrifice something, it is not a sacrifice, the person "sacrificing" doesn't get any benefit to his soul for it.
It is because of this belief of mine that I am against forced charity (like welfare) for the most part.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: You will never hear me ask my husband, "Do I look fat in this" because I would never put him in the position to answer that. There's no right way to answer that.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with that question if you really want to know the answer. Some outfits are more flattering than others, and if you want his opinion about how flattering an outfit is, there's nothing wrong with it.
But I have to say that I really respect it when people know themselves enough so that they don't ask questions that they don't want to know the answer to.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, my opinion on that is that charity isn't just for the giver. If you believe that charity only benefits the one giving, then there's no point to forced charity. But there are people out there who need a little help, regardless of whether or not you want to give it.
Of course, I don't really put welfare in the class of charity, but rather society taking care of its own.
This doesn't even scratch the surface of my welfare opinion, though. While I'm not against welfare, I'm against living off of it, and I think it needs to be vastly improved.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't say that it's only for the giver.
But I do think that it is very important in helping people become better.
Edit -- I'm all for taking care of the poor. I'm just against forcing other people to take care of the poor.
[ September 07, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Porter, re: "fat"
I am comfortable asking my husband "Which of these looks best on me" which leaves him the option of being honest without being insulting. I respect his opinion enough that if he thinks something looks trashy, it probably does, and it's not something I want to be wearing. If he thinks that they both look trashy, that won't insult me either.
But as far as my butt goes, it doesn't actually benefit me in any way to know if it looks wide or not, except to fluff or crush my ego. That's why I don't ask. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
On the subject of honesty, I recently watched a husband and wife act dishonestly with each other on a what many would consider a "flippant" issue (whether or not one was trying to "get rid of" the other's treasured possesion). I was saddened. This kind of dishonesty is quite often considered "acceptable". Porter and I try to be honest with each other about everything so that there is never the need to wonder. That doesn't mean we tell each other everything or every thought that comes into our minds--only that when we do speak we are honest. If Porter doesn't like a dinner I cooked, he will tell me. Edit: But only if I ask or he feels there is good reason to mention it. I may be sad that he didn't like the dinner, but I rejoice that I have a husband who's words I can trust.
As for the secular world and sacrifice, I think as Americans we don't like the concept of sacrifice because it smacks of bondage and Communism. We value our independance to a fault sometimes. "See, I'm free to do stupid things! Just watch me!"
The secular world does teach us to try and work through things--inasmuch as we benefit in some way. Religion is the only institution that teaches us to sacrifice even if we see no benefit to ourselves, with the understanding that it will benefit us in the long run.
See, Squicky, I agree with you that sacrifice for the greater good does turn benefit back to us. Call it karma if you will, but I think it is the nature of reality. I think religion only teaches us to do what is good and right anyway because that is how things really work. I don't buy that we only see benefit to our sacrifice in the afterlife. We see it in *this* life. Then of course it also benefits us in the next--if you are someone who believes in that.
But how do you teach that without religion? The secular try, they really do. Because they recognize the good and the benefit. But they just don't do as good a job, IMO. Maybe they will find a way to get better? I don't know. I haven't seen much evidence of it.
[ September 07, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Then I misread your post PSI - I was under the impression you were growling about people uttering things like, "I hope you can keep that positive attitude" while belittling or making incorrect assumptions about your experience.
I make no assumptions about what trials of fire you may or may not have faced.
As to the "no safe answer," - it really depends on the audience.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, that IS what I was annoyed with, but that's what I thought you were doing too. : )
I think I'm confused. : D
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Bev, the old golden rule has always worked for me Seriously, I'm not trying to brag on my kiddos, but they have been raised without religion. They are both caring, sincere individuals who go out of their way to help others. I live my own life without a religious faith, but I still live a very moral life that involves helping others. I volunteer on a regular basis and have for most of my adulthood.
I've never looked at what benefit helping others gives me, in this life or any others I could have. To be honest, that's a minor problem I have with some religions. The focus on helping others isn't there because it's your responsibility as a human, it's there so you can score some goody points.
Anyway, I guess I'm just saying that the secular and religious worlds are neither all good nor all bad. There are positives and negatives to both. Maybe I'm just being overly-sensitive, but I get tired of people assuming that I don't have a sense of commitment or responsibility because I don't have a religion. (general rant - not at you)
space opera
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
All good PSI - I can't pretend to be in the most complete state of mind at the moment either.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The focus on helping others isn't there because it's your responsibility as a human, it's there so you can score some goody points.
In defense, I would say that most Christians I know are aware of the "rewards in Heaven", but they help people because they are trying to love their neighbor. I think we try not to make the rewards be our primary focus, unless we are having a serious personal struggle. Then, sometimes, we let ourselves think, "Just remember, get through this without breaking and there will be rewards in Heaven." Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, Again, I disagree with your assessment of how good religion does. One of the fundamental teaching of mainstream christianity that I take major issue with is the idea that goodness comes through someone else's blood and efforts and not through your own. I think that this is a horrible lesson to teach and is contradicted strongly by my understanding of the Bible.
Religion has held sway over society throughout history and they never really done that good a job. In the development of western civilization, advancement has often come through anti-religious or at least extra-religious movements, such as the Enlightenment. What has the secular world done? How about established the principles of individual rights and democracy? These are achievements of systems and groups of people (most of them secular) who were fighting against the prevailing religions of their time.
I also don't agree with the idea that people need to or should be tricked into doing the right thing. One of the things that we've consistently found is that external reward/punishment system don't work in American society. They decrease both the quality and duration of the targetted behavior. Imposed external morality severely hampers the development of internal morality.
The secular world's systematic attempts at bettering the human condition are still developing. My own field of humanistic psychology is little more than 50 years old and yet it's made great strides in developing a more complete and complimentary model of the human being and of, in limited cases, applying this model to the world leading to betterments such as improved working environments. Examples of this are chronicled in Maslow on Management, if you care to check out what I'm saying.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Trevor: I think my point was that I get annoyed at being considered "idealistic and immature". It's true to a degree. But it would be easy for me to look back at myself and think that because I had premarital sex, then all those dumb teens out there that are trying to live chastely are fooling themselves. I'd rather consider it my own failure, and continue to have faith in humanity, rather than assume everyone is going to screw up like I did.
Here's what I'm trying to say: I try to assume that others will do better than I did, but it seems like older people are always assuming that everyone will screw up just because they did.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Part of the reason it is "always interpreted this way" is because the right wing has chosen this position as their rally cry against homosexual unions. The term "defense of marriage" didn't exist in public forums except in terms of defending it against percieved homosexual threats. Because no real threat against marriage from homosexuals can actually be indentified and named, it becomes clear to the gay community that "defending this" is code for "restrict gay access to greater participation and acceptance in society". So, though I agree that it is sad that defense of such an important institution is so often interpreted as bashing gays, it is the right-wing bastardization of the phrase rather than any over-sensitivity on the part of gays that has brought this about.
KarlEd, I must disagree that "defense of marriage" is a concept brought about by the gay marriage debate. I think the structure and definition of marriage have been questioned before, and that's what I am saying is being defended. Heck, I belong to a church that adopted polygamy for a time and caused the rest of the country to come to the "defense of marriage." The idea of polygamy just didn't mesh with a society that thrived on "traditional" marriages. Some feminists question the use of marriage at all, and again marriage is defended.
Based on my beliefs, I put quite a bit of stake in the strength and integrity of marriage between a man and a woman. Most other of life's endeavors pale in comparison to how important this institution is to me and what can be attained through it. Although I would take a loving, committed marriage of a homosexual couple over an unhappy or broken marriage between a man and a woman any day, I would take a loving, committed marriage between a man and a woman over anything else. I wouldn't rank any other union equal to that. Opening up the definition of marriage, as is now being debated, would to me signify a general rejection of belief that there are benefits of marriage between a man and a woman that can be gotten no other way. My own defense of marriage doesn't center on homosexuals, although so many have (rather selfishly) pulled that assumption over themselves like a cloak. My defense really is against anything that would diminish the benefits and blessings marriage can bring.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I think that this is a horrible lesson to teach and is contradicted strongly by my understanding of the Bible.
-MrS
quote: 4But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
-TIT 3: 4-6
quote: 8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
-EPH 2:8-10
Here are a couple of verses. Should I look for more?
[ September 07, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Space Opera, as I said, religion doesn't hold the corner on truth. Anyone who applies principles of goodness in their lives will benefit. Many who are disillusioned with religion are disillusioned not with religion but with hypocracy and double standards. They are trying their best to be good people, and I respect that.
Though as an aside, I must say that I have a hard time understanding throwing out organized religion because some of the followers are hypocrites. I mean, how can there not be hypocrites without removing free will? People are free to make bad or stupid choices--choices that will hurt them and others. If someone is upset with religion, shouldn't their beef be with the actual teachings and doctrine? Just throwin' that out there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Anytime a group says that you should try to be better than you are, you will end up with hypocrites (using the common usage). People are flawed, and some of them will always fail to live up to what they think they should do.
That doesn't seem like a reason to stop trying to do better, though.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Squicky, keep in mind I do not side with "mainstream Christianity" in many respects.
# D&C 84: 46
46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.
Now, while this is scripture unique to LDS, I imagine most Christians would agree that God has put a spark of "goodness" into all mankind, despite our "fallen natures". It is up to us what we follow and embrace.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
a for r, fair enough, but the overwhelming majority of current usage for that phrase is as I have described. I'm not saying the concept that marriage is under attack is particularly new or that the concept is always in relation to some gay rights issue, but when Acts of Congress are titled "Defense of Marriage" and really have no other purpose than to restrict gays' access to marriage, you can't expect the phrase not to carry that connotation beyond the law itself. And since it does carry that connotation in contemporary discourse, it should be reasonably expected that people will react accordingly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, Do you really want to get into a Bible bashing session with me? Your (hardly unopposed) quotes speak to the issue of salvation, not morality. These are two separate issues.
The concept of the "fallen" human nature isn't in the Bible. There are two quotes from Paul that sort of kind of, if you squint at them, might support the doctrine of original sin, but it's absent from the Bible itself. It was codified by Augstine and was opposed by a contemporary of Augustine called Pelagius, who, because of this was labeled a heretic.
Taken logically, the concept of the "falleness" inherent in original sin either claims that people who do not accept God's grace cannot be good or violates free will, as those people who are good but deny God's grace must have it forced on them.
Here's a couple of quotes about sin from the Bible:
quote:And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)
quote:Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who has loved his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)
For me, the idea that the only thing you have to do to live correctly is to wave around a "Yay Jesus" pennant is an obviously perversion of the Bible.
[ September 07, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I certainly want my marriage and family protected. When all 5 of us get married, I don't want anyone encroaching on that or desecrating it. Marriage laws need to be modified to allow consenting adults to marry in whatever combinations or permutations they choose.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: My defense really is against anything that would diminish the benefits and blessings marriage can bring.
If you don't mind me asking, what is your definition of "diminish?" Also, what "benefits and blessings" are you speaking about? Since it is secular law that is being invoked, how does the US Government become responsible for any of your 'blessings' as I am (maybe wrongly) defining blessings in a spiritual bent. As for benefits, how are those effected by someone elses marriage, be it happy, between homosexuals, be it dysfunctional, be it willing, be it polygamous? Would it mean...honestly, I can't think of what it would mean.
I have yet to see any real "damages" to current or future heterosexual marriages because of a public, legal definition. I have no idea what those damages would look like. Maybe if I have an idea of what those "blessings and benefits" are, I could understand this better.
fil
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The concept of the "fallen" human nature isn't in the Bible.
It is *overtly* obvious in The Book of Mormon. As is the concept of the "light of Christ" given to all men to guide them: basically, their conscience.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Porter, The issue that I keep running into in these debates is that, yes, people aren't going to constantly live up to systems, but that doesn't mean that different systems don't have different, measurable effects on people. When you dismiss all criticism of a belief system based on the actions of the people who are members of that system with a blanket statement, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Beliefs and systems of beliefs do have effects and these effects, being part of the observable world, can be in ways measured. Honestly, from my perspective, given the bad track record that Christians have displayed, I'd figure that this would be something that most Christians would be extremely interested in. I believe in a lot of Christ's message and I'm very interested in why very few Christians live up to this message. I'd figure the same would be true of people who are inside the religion as well.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: Your (hardly unopposed) quotes speak to the issue of salvation, not morality. These are two separate issues.
--Mr. Squicky
To which the Bible replies:
quote: Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
-- Galatians 3:3
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Your (hardly unopposed) quotes speak to the issue of salvation, not morality.
quote: 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
I don't know what Bible bashing is, MrSquicky.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: When you dismiss all criticism of a belief system based on the actions of the people who are members of that system with a blanket statement, you're being intellectually dishonest.
You are correct, but I wasn't aware that I was doing that. Please show me where I did this so that I can avoid it in the future.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Another quote that I love, this one from Peter referring to the apostle Paul:
quote: His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
-- 2 Peter 3:16
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: When you dismiss all criticism of a belief system based on the actions of the people who are members of that system with a blanket statement, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Do you feel that the members of particular religions in general tend to be worse off than those not of that group? Better? The same? Do you take into account how much they consider themselves to be followers of that particular religion? Are you qualified to make that kind of judgement?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Porter, I was taking the whole, people are going to be hypocrites line to feed into this type of idea, which has been trotted out regularly in pretty much the context that said it was. As always, I try to characterize what I see in people's posts and reflect it back to them. Often I get it wrong. If that's the case here I freely admit that I wasn't actually talking about you, even if I thought I was and I appologize for misrepresenting your position.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, I don't have information about how members of particular religions stack up against others. That's not really where my interest lies to be honest. If there were one religion that far outshone all the rest, I'm pretty darn sure that I, along with the rest of the world, would know about it.
To be fair, I'm reasonably sure the same relationship with dedication to religion and behavior/maturity plays out in non-religious belief systems to. That is, I think that there is a sort of dedication to truth motivation that underlies both religious and secular contexts.
In many other countries besides America, religious belief doesn't predict things like prejudiced behavior.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
KarlEd, great first post. I totally agree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
MrS -- that's fair.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think one of the most imporatnt things we can do to encourage lasting healthy marriages is to strongly encourage pre-marital counseling. I think many marriages end up unhappy/ in divorce because the partners were incompatible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, Bible bashing is throwing Biblical quotes and interpretations back and forth at each other. In this case, we'd be replicating the faith-only Protestant versus the Catholics and other groups who hold works+faith interpretations of salvation and would still be missing the point that I didn't talk about salvation (although, honestly I think it's important) but about goodness, which, in the faith only view is a separate issue.
I can easily replicate this argument. I've studied Christianity extensively back when I was struggling with my Catholic faith. I'll tell you that there will be no net result.
And that's leaving aside all the stuff I can talk about with Paul and his drastic push of evangelicalism to get as many people to be Christians before the end of the world leading to him to craft his message to best convert other people and then this crafting being taken out of the context that it's in and made to serve a completely different purpose. Or the fact that I think that what has been included in the canonical Bible was in large part the result of people with an certain view, which I don't agree with nor do I think the Bible supports, aggressing towards the people who were truer to the Christ's pacifistic message.
I read the Bible differently than you. Based on my reading, what I talked about doesn't at all fit with it. If you actually want to talk about my different view, I'm willing to do that. But what's the point in supporting an argument that's going to be as long as it is pointless?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:If you don't mind me asking, what is your definition of "diminish?" Also, what "benefits and blessings" are you speaking about? Since it is secular law that is being invoked, how does the US Government become responsible for any of your 'blessings' as I am (maybe wrongly) defining blessings in a spiritual bent. As for benefits, how are those effected by someone elses marriage, be it happy, between homosexuals, be it dysfunctional, be it willing, be it polygamous? Would it mean...honestly, I can't think of what it would mean.
I have yet to see any real "damages" to current or future heterosexual marriages because of a public, legal definition. I have no idea what those damages would look like. Maybe if I have an idea of what those "blessings and benefits" are, I could understand this better.
Well, fil, I'm not going to win you or anyone else over here. I'm sure at least some of this has been explained before on Hatrack. "Diminish" would be something along the lines of bringing the expected benefits and blessings down to a lower common denominator. I see marriage as more than a legal union with its attendant benefits; more still than even a committed, loving, stable, lifelong relationship. Wonderful benefits, but I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman, performed with the proper authority, is a component of exaltation, or becoming like God--and I believe that this exaltation is something that everyone has a right to.
No, having the government redefine marriage to include any type of union would not damage my own marriage or the benefits I hope for in it. And my country isn't responsible for furnishing those particular blessings. However, such a redefinition would open up the way for people to enjoy some of the benefits of marriage, but to have chosen a path that cannot lead to all the benefits they might someday enjoy.
That's it, in a nutshell. My concern for the long-term welfare of the people. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
MrS: I felt like my second quote did address goodness, as well as salvation.
As far as Paul is concerned, that really will be a brick wall for me when it comes to debating. I'm perfectly willing to admit that the men who wrote the Bible were human and imperfect. But once a person starts looking for motives for an author of scripture to lie, or be deceitful, or misrepresent, or any of those things, then they might as well throw the whole Bible out.
And it's not like Paul doesn't make it clear, in his writing, that there are things that are just his opinion in there.
But to use as a defense against the Bible that Paul was, essentially, lying, then you won't have any conversations with people who believe the Bible is true. That just makes sense.
I mean, you could even say, "I don't believe the Bible, but let's talk about what it says" and I'd be up for that. But if you preface by saying, "Let's talk about the parts of the Bible that I believe, and Paul isn't one of them" then I would have to ask, "So which parts of the Bible DO you believe?"
So, we've ruled out Paul. Are there any parts of the Bible you believe or trust?
----
OH, and by the way, since I just saw this:
quote: For me, the idea that the only thing you have to do to live correctly is to wave around a "Yay Jesus" pennant is an obviously perversion of the Bible.
I didn't say this. I don't think this. All I did was quote TWO verses of the Bible. If you derived that sentence from the two verses I posted, than you are reading way too much into the Bible.
You also have no clue about how I feel regarding faith verses works. Or maybe you do, from past threads, but I don't see any quotes from any of them so I'll have to assume you're just guessing at what I think. Once again, for me to quote two verses and have to assume that I think works are pointless, that's a whole lot of assumption, and I find it annoying.
ALL I even meant is that I believe good comes, ultimately, from the Lord. That's ALL I was referring to, and all I was even thinking about. I didn't even give a hint as to how I feel about salvation in this thread.
You also assumed, and let's remember that all I did was quote two verses, that I don't know/haven't read/don't care about Jesus' commandment to love God and others.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, It's not that I don't believe in Paul. We had a thread awhile back where I was totally defending Paul, taken in context. My problem is people reading Paul without understanding the context he was writing in. Not suprisingly, this is an accepted way of looking at him, otherwise women wouldn't be allowed to speak in church. One of my biggest complaints about Paul isn't what people think he said, but all the things that he did say that they conveniently ignore. He's honestly my favorite figure in the first couple of hundred years of Christian history (cepting Jesus).
Oh, as for what I don't believe in. Most of the Old Testament fits the bill. Although I find the Talmud very interesting, the bits of it I've read.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: One of my biggest complaints about Paul isn't what people think he said, but all the things that he did say that they conveniently ignore.
Like what? Totally honest here.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
<--- luvs Paul!!! <3 <3
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, I didn't assume or state anything about your beliefs. I talked about a specific set of beliefs that I see as very prominent in mainstream Christianity. You may have read into it that I was assigning these beliefs to you, but that was not my intent.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
To be fair, I feel like I have seen that attitude in mainstream Christianity too. But that may be a "lowest common denominator" thing and I don't imagine anyone on Hatrack buying into it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: In this case, we'd be replicating the faith-only Protestant versus the Catholics and other groups who hold works+faith interpretations of salvation and would still be missing the point that I didn't talk about salvation (although, honestly I think it's important) but about goodness, which, in the faith only view is a separate issue.
So which side of this did you see me on? Or did I misread the point of this?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, Paul was very very heavy into inclusiveness and community. For his time, he was a very compassionate and liberal thinker. He worked so very hard for the Gentiles at a time where most of the central figures, including nearly all of the Apostles, were claiming that Christ came only for the Jews. His writings are the first available place that I know of that advocate socialism. One of the things I really love is his statement that if you take another person to court, you're admitting that either he isn't a Christian or you aren't, because laws and courts are not how Christians resolve disagreements. Instead, if they really can't work it out between themselves, they take it to the community.
I also really like his statement from Romans that I referenced above, that boils down to saying that if you truely love your neighbor, it is impossible for you to sin. It's fantastic.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
OH OH OH, my bad. I misunderstood what you meant by "totally ignore".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, I saw you as taking a side in the salvation by faith versus by works of believing in works. Many people on that side have, in my opinion, bought into the Yay Jesus! crowd, but that doesn't mean that believing in salvation by faith only means you are in this crowd.
THis path started off with me talking about perversions of what I saw as Christ's message. I was further elaborating this perversion, but I wasn't trying to attribute it to you. As you said, I don't have anywhere near enough evidence to make a statement like that, and I really do try to limit myself to statements I can support.
---
edit: Err...I don't understand what that last post meant. Are you talking to me and where did I say totally ignore?
[ September 07, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Squick:
quote:I also really like his statement from Romans that I referenced above, that boils down to saying that if you truely love your neighbor, it is impossible for you to sin. It's fantastic.
I interpret it as "If you truly love your neighbor, don't sin, because by sinning you are doing wrong to your neighbor." In other words, don't say that you aren't harming anyone by your actions, because you damn well are. I think that's the essence of the ideal Christian community.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, for clarification, I'll give my position, as far as I can. I'm always open to revision by learning more.
I am a faith-only person. However, I firmly believe that "faith without works is dead" and that "you shall be known by your fruits". However, rather than saying that if you don't work you won't be saved, I take the position that if you aren't working, you may not be saved. Work comes in all forms, though, and a lot of things people do are not going to be on a billboard for our viewing pleasure.
I also don't necessarily believe that if you say you believe in Jesus, you're going to Heaven, no buts about it. There are many verses that say things like:
quote: "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
which, to me, says that there will be people who consider themselves Christians, but because they were living like Hell, they will be going there. (I mean, who's going to be calling Jesus "Lord, Lord" aside from people who consider themselves Christians?)
Anyway, I wanted to say thanks for being respectful of me in this thread, probably moreso than I deserved.
---
edit: Oh, excuse me, you said "conveniently ignore" regarding the writings of Paul.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PSI, Or the passage where Jesus is talking about people dying and coming before him and him saying "When I was hungry, you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty...etc. Now enter into the home of my Father." And then to the other group, you didn't feed me, clothe me, shelter me, or comfort me, so depart from this place. And, then, to their questions, when did we see you? He answers, whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me. (The hymn was totally going through my head as I wrote that).
Like I said, the faith only salvation argument is hardly unnopposed.
Also, contrary to what you might think, especially based on that other thread, I endevour to be as respectful to people here as possible. The people I don't respect, I just don't talk to, or I limit myself to providing opposing views when I think that they are needed.
edit: That's a way of doing things I really wish was more common around here, but what are you going to do?
[ September 07, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
afr, I always took that, when combined with Jesus' statements about the greatest commandment to set up a tautology being love-doing the right on one side and hating-sinning on the other. This was jazzy to me because of it's essentially progressive nature (i.e. doing the right comes down to how you do things, not necessarily what you do - although many things you can't really do if you do love) and became the basis for my incredibly heretical view of Christianity as a progressive rather than absolutist religion and of Jesus's death as an example and not a sacrifice.
But I could see you way too. I just prefer mine.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I would say that Marriage and The Family are not things that need protecting. But I think they are parts of a well constructed life, and if we don't take shelter in them we personally and as a group will expose ourselves to harm. I don't mean from VD and all that, I mean in having confidence at the end of our lives that we did all we could to help our children grown up to be charitable, contributing members of society.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Teaching, in the way I'm using it, is a direct attempt to impart these things from the outside. It's saying "Be Responsible" and then rewarding or punishing based on this. This is exactly the attitude that considers allowing divorce as the reason why marriages fail.
Most things are, at least at first, imposed on children from the outside. There is a time and place for everything, and trying to explain to a 3 year old in the middle of a store WHY it is wrong to throw things at the person in front of you in line is either. At that point the most important thing is that they listen to you because you said so...not because they "want" to.
As a person gets older, they deserve better explanations, real reasons for their expected behaviors.
But without the discipline in the first place they won't ever "choose" to mature on their own until it is too late.
You start young, and you teach (and show them) respect for you and for themselves, and then hope it takes.
But it all starts from outside...without outside influences we are tabula rasa, and without role models who do as they say they will never learn the necessary lessons.
Kwea
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Squicky,
The reason Jesus' death is an example is because it is a sacrifice. It is because he gave a sacrifice truly and only because it was the Lord's will that he do it, and not because it would get him into heaven.
(edit, since Kwea posted) It's not so much obedience as sacrifice of will.
[ September 07, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pooka, I disagree as do most of other Christian sects for other reasons. The mainstream reading is that Jesus's sacrifice was a neccesary event for salvation. That is, by his sacrifice, he made salvation a possibility.
My reading is that Jesus was providing an example for all those who would follow, without any salvation requirements at all. My reading of Christ's message is that actually living it calls for sacrifices pretty much in line with willingly being crucified. Certainly Christ tells you that not only can you not hate your enemies, but you actually have to help them. When he said, do this in memory of me, I think he was talking about what was to come. He was calling everyone who would follow him to truely follow him, to willingly accept the cross and even crucifixion if necessary.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seriously, I'm not trying to brag on my kiddos, but they have been raised without religion. They are both caring, sincere individuals who go out of their way to help others. I live my own life without a religious faith, but I still live a very moral life that involves helping others. I volunteer on a regular basis and have for most of my adulthood. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
(general rant - not at you)