This is topic Honor Thy Children in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=047701

---

Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
 
Quoted from my textbook on human growth and development:

“Authoritarian Child Rearing - Parents who use an authoritarian child-rearing style are low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting. … ‘Do it because I said so!’ is the attitude of these parents. If the child disobeys, authoritarian parents resort to force and punishment. They make decisions for their child and expect the child to accept their word in an unquestioning manner. If the child does not, authoritarian parents resort to force and punishment.
Children of authoritarian parents are anxious and unhappy… Boys, especially, show high rates of anger and defiance. Girls are dependant, lacking in exploration and overwhelmed by challenging tasks. Nevertheless, because of authoritarian parents’ concern with control, children and adolescents experiencing this style do better in school and are less likely to engage in antisocial acts than those with undemanding parents.” (Infants, Children, and Adolescents, by Laura E. Berk, Fifth Edition, pg. 389).

When I started asking questions in church, the general response was, “The Bible is the word of God, and you should believe it because it is the word of God.” They were generally happy, polite and patient, but this was always the bottom line of their message. This particular attitude really turns me off to religion. Authoritarian parents have the, “Do it because I say so, stop asking for an explanation! I’m the parent, I own you!” attitude, and God really comes off as having the same attitude. And there are people completely willing to accept that God owns us; I’m not one of them.

Authoritarians are low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting. Let’s see if the Christian God meets those requirements.

Is the Christian God low in acceptance? My church believed in the concept of original sin. They believed that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It was drilled into my head that I could never, ever hope to be righteous or good or clean on my own. I’d have to say that’s not very accepting of God. The basic message I received was that God can never accept me as I am. The only identity I know is unworthy of Him. As an introspective child, I wondered just what part of me was wrong. It upset me a great deal that I couldn’t determine where I was flawed, and that I could never fix myself or earn the acceptance of God as I am.

Is the Christian God low on involvement? I can’t think of a time He’s been in my life. I certainly can’t prove that He has ever been involved in my life in any way. Despite having religious parents and being exposed to religion at a very young age, I have never felt that He was involved in my life.

Is the Christian God high in coercive control? Let’s define coercion:
1. To compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition.
2. To dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.

Addressing the first definition – The general attitude in my church was, “Who are you to question God? When he was creating the universe, where were you? When he was taming the leviathan, where were you? How can you ever hope to compare to his power or comprehend him?” The Christian God is a master of force and intimidation, a master of commanding authority. He even tells us that our basic desires and volitions are wrong. If they weren’t wrong, we wouldn’t need the Ten Commandments. My church told me, in essence, that at my deepest core, I am flawed, imperfect, wrong, a sinner, and that caused a lot of anxiety in me as a young child. This leads us to the second definition.

He exploits the anxiety He has created in us. Christianity teaches us to be insecure, it teaches us to hate ourselves, and naturally, we become anxious and crave acceptance. And then God offers you acceptance in exchange for your obedience. God also tries to control our actions by exploiting our fear of him, as seen in the often accepted point of view, “If you don’t obey God and worship Him you will burn in Hell for eternity.”

Christianity compounds the desire for acceptance by telling you that you are imperfect, and then satisfies your desire by forgiving you, and accepting you; by telling you that you can belong. All you have to do to belong is give up your soul. Dedicate yourself to them unquestioningly. All you have to do to get into heaven is have blind faith. It’s terrible and manipulative.

Is the Christian God low on autonomy granting? I know the word “autonomy” has a lot of different meanings depending on what field you are in, but in childcare it means the child is empowered with a sense of competence and faith in the self that allows him or her to make decisions independent of a parent or other authority figure. I was taught that the Christian God did not want me to be in the world making decisions without Him. I was told that once I accept the Holy Spirit into my life, it will never leave me. An example of churches pushing this is the W.W.J.D. bracelet fad. It’s also evident in our culture whenever we see a celebrity thank God. This doesn’t mean that every person to ever thank God genuinely feels they need God, but I really feel it indicates God is a socially acceptable crutch. Basically, God wants you to be obedient and He wants you to depend on Him. He wants to be the source of your strength. And we know that Authoritarian rule breeds dependence in females especially.

My church was not fanatic. They were normal for a non-denominational Christian Church in Michigan. I’ve gone to plenty of different churches, and those core Christian methods are always there, always taught, and always damaging the youth. I think it's overt, but it must be subtle since it's so overlooked. Older people might not take the teachings to heart, but children certainly do. At least I did. And everyone pretends that nothing is happening. They act like it’s normal, like it’s good. It’s like they don’t want us to think for ourselves.

I know there’s a move to turn the Christian God into an authoritative God (one that is loving, accepting, non-judgmental, a God that patiently explains things to us, one that grants us autonomy), but there is already so much canonical scripture and dogma in place that promotes an authoritarian God… good luck keeping the fundamentalists off your back, because at its core, Christianity has an authoritarian God.

This authoritarian style of God will get you good students and citizens who are less likely to perform antisocial acts, but is it worth it? In the Dawkins thread, people are talking about science versus religion. They are addressing the long debate about proving whether or not God exists using science and logic.

I submit to you that it doesn’t matter. If the Christian God does exist, he is horribly manipulative and coercive, and you shouldn’t be following him anyway.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
Well, I'd certainly agree that the Christian god of scripture is authoritarian and coercive. No doubt about it.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
"low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting"

God became mortal, lived with us on the Earth, taught for three years, then died to pay for our sins. God gave us free will and was willing to die for that gift.

Sorry, DD, I see that as pretty high in acceptance, involvement, and autonomy granting.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm very glad that I grew up in a Christian church that taught...well, mostly the exact opposite of whatever it is you learned from your church.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm actually more interested in your horrible textbook. How awful IS that class?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I don't see why I can't be an authoritarian and involved and loving parent.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
The thing is, even though I didn't appreciate it as a kid, I realize now that I needed my parents rules and guidance to learn and grow.

Left to my own devices, I'd have been nothing more than a playful, noisy, selfish brat.

The things they taught me about God and why I should love Him and want to obey Him were nothing like the awful "just because" things you invoke.
 

---

Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I'm actually more interested in your horrible textbook. How awful IS that class?

---

quote:

---

# Indulgent parents (also referred to as "permissive" or "nondirective") "are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Indulgent parents may be further divided into two types: democratic parents, who, though lenient, are more conscientious, engaged, and committed to the child, and nondirective parents.

# Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules. Authoritarian parents can be divided into two types: nonauthoritarian-directive, who are directive, but not intrusive or autocratic in their use of power, and authoritarian-directive, who are highly intrusive.

# Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. "They monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).

# Uninvolved parents are low in both responsiveness and demandingness. In extreme cases, this parenting style might encompass both rejecting–neglecting and neglectful parents, although most parents of this type fall within the normal range.

---

What you guys are talking about when you say you need to be firm, set boundaries, and still be loving and involved is actually authoritative, not authoritarian. At least, authoritative is how I like to parent.

As for God...well, the way the old testament portrays him he was pretty authoritarian. The way the new testament portrays him, he is more forgiving. The way some modern Christians talk about it, he is still authoritarian. So really, it doesn't help to be mad at God for what humans say he said, says, did, does, or even is. Decide for yourself.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
What Christine said. Authoritarian is a defective parenting style, but it is not the only style that employs authority. The description in the book sounds like it comes from the well established work of Eleanor Maccoby and Diana Baumrind, in the unlikely event that people are interested in following it up.

DD,
You are not alone in your perspective. For an extended look at the authoritarian, self-loathing religion and why it appeals to many people, I'd recommend Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

the way the old testament portrays him he was pretty authoritarian.

---

I disagree. You don't get much more responsive than the deity described in the Old Testament. Additionally, people questioned Him all the time (Abraham, Moses, etc), and He provided an answer that was usually deeper than 'Cuz I said so.'

As for the New Testament God-- have you read Revelations? Talked with Ananias or his wife lately?


 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

Additionally, people questioned Him all the time (Abraham, Moses, etc), and He provided an answer that was usually deeper than 'Cuz I said so.'

---

quote:

---

if I disagree with your interpretation, I must have read it wrong? Is it not even worth it to explain the context?

---

quote:

---

How about "Don't you touch the fruit of that tree."?

---

quote:

---

Genesis Ch 2

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

quote:

---

"Kill your son because I said to."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AvidReader:
"low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting"

God became mortal, lived with us on the Earth, taught for three years, then died to pay for our sins. God gave us free will and was willing to die for that gift.

---

quote:

---

God gave us free will and then was willing to die for it... Who demanded blood in the first place? Oh, that's right, God did. Being God, couldn't he have set up a different mechanism by which we could be saved?

---

quote:

---

Don't praise Him for His (or Jesus', depending on whether or not you believe in the trinity) sacrifice when he's the sole reason one is required.

Let's address this self-loathing thing again. Authoritarian parent's use repeat insults to gain control of their children. I don't see how the Christian religion is any different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."

I imagine that our relationship with God is similar only an infinitely larger scale. More is revealed to us as we are capabalae of understanding more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:
After you get your child out of the road, you can then explain to them that they could get themselves hurt or killed by running out in front of cars. I tend to think that "because I said so" is the bottom line, but that even if our kids are too young to understand (or we *think* they are) that we should try to give them an explanation. Up front if possible, when they are out of danger if necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stihl1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."

I imagine that our relationship with God is similar only an infinitely larger scale. More is revealed to us as we are capabalae of understanding more.

---

I totally agree with this. That's my feeling as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:
After you get your child out of the road, you can then explain to them that they could get themselves hurt or killed by running out in front of cars. I tend to think that "because I said so" is the bottom line, but that even if our kids are too young to understand (or we *think* they are) that we should try to give them an explanation. Up front if possible, when they are out of danger if necessary.

---

I don't totally agree with this. I see so many parents trying to explain to their unruly kids why they have to behave, while the kid ignores them and keeps misbehaving. Sometimes you just have to tell the kid to knock it off and behave or follow the rules. Especially the young ones. Maybe later, at an appropriate time you explain why.

And frankly I disagree with the definititions about parenting styles posted above. They imply certain styles are better than others, as if all kids are equal. And I certainly don't agree with that.

---

quote:

---

# Indulgent parents (also referred to as "permissive" or "nondirective") "are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Indulgent parents may be further divided into two types: democratic parents, who, though lenient, are more conscientious, engaged, and committed to the child, and nondirective parents.

# Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules. Authoritarian parents can be divided into two types: nonauthoritarian-directive, who are directive, but not intrusive or autocratic in their use of power, and authoritarian-directive, who are highly intrusive.

# Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. "They monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).

# Uninvolved parents are low in both responsiveness and demandingness. In extreme cases, this parenting style might encompass both rejecting–neglecting and neglectful parents, although most parents of this type fall within the normal range.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I think it might help if you didn't view the examples as 'styles,' but as behaviors.

Some parenting behaviors ARE better than others.

---

quote:

---

And again, I don't believe all children are equal across the board. Some kids are just naturally going to misbehave and act up. Some kids are going to be low key and respond to explanations and being talked to rather than just being told 'no' or 'because I said so'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stihl1:

And again, I don't believe all children are equal across the board. Some kids are just naturally going to misbehave and act up. Some kids are going to be low key and respond to explanations and being talked to rather than just being told 'no' or 'because I said so'.

---

quote:

---

but "naturally going to misbehave" is a misclassification at best. I think it would be more appropriate to say that some kids are going to test boundaries more than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The initial statement postulates some drive towards doing bad behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The second is about a more active, less boundary respecting behavior. In the second, this is not necessarily "bad" behavior, even if it is more challenging for the parents.

---

I agree.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
Thanks, Squicky. That's exactly what I meant.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
C,
We're talking the same language here, which is very rare for me, so I know pretty much where you are coming from (as would other people who read the research we're talking about). If I remember correctly, you're a psychologist too, right?

Anyway, it's nice to not be alone on things like this, so thanks yourself.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
I majored in psychology and have one year of grad school -- but as I never actually completed a master's degree or Ph.D. I don't actually call myself a psychologist. Nevertheless, I am well-versed in this subject area.
 

---

Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
Frankly, I'm not really interested in becoming an authority on the subject, and only have a experiential opinion on the matter. From my experience, sometimes you just have to say 'no' and skip the explanation. And honestly, that happens more often than not with the older kids. I find that I did a lot more explaining to the kids when they were younger and had an open mind that was eager to learn and find out why not than I did with them when they were teens. Sometimes, especially with a teenager, you can't explain why or why not. And only years after, when they mature will they realize why not. Because often a teen KNOWS why or why not, yet they choose to do so anyway. It's part of exploring boundaries and understanding the world. And it's your job as a parent to tell them no and keep them from making mistakes while exploring boundaries and understanding their world. It is not your job to make them happy or for them to like you. And sometimes you can't explain why or why not. So you just tell them no and move on without the explanation.

No matter how often I tell my 14 year old that she's not an adult and capable of making decisions on her own, she will disagree. No matter how much I explain why she isn't, she will disagree. Because she wants that freedom even if she's not ready to handle it. So sometimes, you gotta say 'no' and be an authoritarian and not authoritative.

IMO the BEST parenting style incorporates all of those mentioned methods, and to pass judgement on any of them alone is wrong.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Christine,
Yeah, I should have been clearer. I'm limping towards a masters right now while working full time as a programmer, so I'm not technically one either.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
stihl,
Would you agree that certain results with regards to children are prefferable to others?

If so, if one style could be consistently shown to produce the more favorable results, wouldn't it be fair to say that, in most cases, it is the better style?

Because that is basically what the researchers did.

And again, they are not methods or behaviors, but rather styles of method and behaviors.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."

---

After you get your child out of the road, you can then explain to them that they could get themselves hurt or killed by running out in front of cars. I tend to think that "because I said so" is the bottom line, but that even if our kids are too young to understand (or we *think* they are) that we should try to give them an explanation. Up front if possible, when they are out of danger if necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
stihl,
Would you agree that certain results with regards to children are prefferable to others?

If so, if one style could be consistently shown to produce the more favorable results, wouldn't it be fair to say that, in most cases, it is the better style?

Because that is basically what the researchers did.

And again, they are not methods or behaviors, but rather styles of method and behaviors.

---

quote:

---

I submit to you that it doesn’t matter. If the Christian God does exist, he is horribly manipulative and coercive, and you shouldn’t be following him anyway.

---

I think letting all of his children be pretty much free to do anything they want is a pretty lame way to be manipulative and coercive.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 


Recommended reading: "Mazelife" by Kyoji Kobayashi, collected in Monkey Brain Sushi. Someone decides to design his own god, after a library search. (How would you expect an academic to find God?)
 

---

Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
 
Sorry, I had to attend my Grandfather’s funeral this weekend, so I was unable to reply until now.

Thank you, Christine, I should have included all of the parenting styles in my original post, however, I did not because I wanted to keep it as brief as possible. I see now how important that information was. Also, in defense of my text book, Berk includes four citations with the description for authoritarian parenting alone. She is not making this information up. Her work is also easy to read and well-organized.

From Jim-Me, concerning controlling your children -

“In my particular situation, it is shorthand for "I have five of you to coordinate and control and I can't do it if you are all off running around in your own world all the time. Sometimes you have to do what Daddy says because Daddy is responsible for running the family and you are not... and it runs poorly if you don't listen and obey."”

To him and everyone else that misunderstood the authoritarian style - I agree that it is not appropriate or needed to explain everything, in every situation. However, what we must look at is the intent of the parent. If we look at the definition, authoritarian parents have a need to assert control that over-rides the individual needs of their children. They will resort to punishment and assert their complete authority in situations where the child needs understanding from the parent, or the child needs to assert their own authority to gain autonomy. You also have to look at the tactics the parent uses to gain/maintain control.

Because of this, Chinese parents are not authoritarian. They are strict, but they approach discipline by instilling in their children a sense of social duty. Their forms of punishment are often accompanied by moral stories about the importance of following rules to maintain society. For example, children obey their parents in much the same way the parents must obey the Emperor, this obedience is done for honor and to maintain society. They teach their children to obey rules for the good of society, not because the parents simply want to be in control.

Sadly, if the parent is more concerned about controlling their child (thereby satisfying their needs) then meeting the developmental needs of their child, problems will arise.

As far as variables among children is concerned, remember that genetics will play a role in development, and so will gender. And even though a parent may dominantly use one style, they can shift styles depending on their mood, stress, which child they are speaking to, whether or not their spouse is present, and a whole ton of other variables. Development is a complex thing, and you never know when a key situation might arise and your child needs you to be authoritative, but instead you are stressed and end up being authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved.

From Samprimary

“I think letting all of his children be pretty much free to do anything they want is a pretty lame way to be manipulative and coercive.”

So God is an uninvolved father now? Seriously though, you’ve never heard a minister use threat of hellfire? You’ve never read scripture where God punishes someone for being disobedient (Jonah and the whale springs to mind)? Now, I might argue this is an understandable disciplinary act, but it’s a clear example of God not letting people do whatever they want.

To Sott R –

Mormonism sounds okay, I am happy that you openly do not fully embrace the concept of original sin. To me, the statement “God loves you, he made you special and unique for a reason,” always seemed to be at direct odds with, “You were born imperfect, a sinner, and only with God/Jesus can you overcome the nature you were born with.” I could never tell which parts of me were bad and evil and which parts God wanted to be there. There were people who said things like, “God loves the sinner; He hates the sin.” The problem that hit me with this is the definition my church gave for sin:

Sin – Disobeying God. Straight up. Nothing else. God tells you to do it, you damn well better do it, ‘cause if you don’t you’re sinning. For example, if God says kill every man, woman and child in that city, you had better do it, or there will be hell to pay.

That’s a very authoritarian view, and it allows no room for personal scruples. If you obey God, you are doing what is right, if you disobey him, you are doing wrong. No matter what he tells you to do. Perhaps other sects have a clear definition of good and evil that is not related to the will of God. If you do, I am interested to hear it.

This view also results in some interesting conflicts with Satan, I figure that’s probably another whole topic, but here’s a brief summary: God is neither good nor evil; he is simply what he is. He is good only because He made us and tells us that he has our best interest in mind. Satan is evil only because He did not make us and does not have our best interest in mind. But if we lived in a universe made by Satan, Satan would love us and have our best interests in mind, just as much as God would then hate us. Since there is no definition of good or evil that transcends these super-natural beings, the only way to tell the difference between them is by looking at which deity happens to have created us.

From kmbboots –

“Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."

I imagine that our relationship with God is similar only an infinitely larger scale. More is revealed to us as we are capabalae of understanding more.”

I agree with you on the parenting issue, and look at what I said to Jim-Me above. Now we have to talk about God’s intent, which I was taught is completely impossible. Is God doing this for our own good or just because he likes to be in control of us?

I have seen many people try to describe the evolution of God over time, and why it happens. For example, there is a move in the Christian church to give more rights to women. You can hypothesize that God didn’t give women more rights earlier because people wouldn’t have accepted the religion, or because survival demanded that women be oppressed, or simply because a giant asteroid would have destroyed the earth if women were allowed to hold positions of power. I’ve even seen people argue that God never wanted women to have fewer rights than men, it’s simply men corrupting God’s word (but if that were true, it seems like God would have done something a little sooner). But all of those play back to the whole, “The Lord works in mysteries ways,” clause, which basically allows God to do (or not do) whatever the hell whenever the hell. In fact, that attitude creates a world where it is impossible to know what is caused by chaos, God, or human will.

In a modern (“modern” meaning a world in which God does not actively speak to us, and if he did, no one would believe you anyway) context, the “because I said so, but I might reveal more at a later date” excuse becomes the most ambiguous form of rule setting, especially for rules that are at odds with the way our society is headed.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Mormonism sounds okay

---

We're so glad you approve.

quote:

---

To me, the statement “God loves you, he made you special and unique for a reason,” always seemed to be at direct odds with, “You were born imperfect, a sinner, and only with God/Jesus can you overcome the nature you were born with.”

---

quote:

---

I could never tell which parts of me were bad and evil and which parts God wanted to be there. There were people who said things like, “God loves the sinner; He hates the sin.”

---

quote:

---

Christ says ‘Give me all. I don’t want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don’t want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down…Hand over the natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked—the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.”

---

quote:

---

God is neither good nor evil; he is simply what he is. He is good only because He made us and tells us that he has our best interest in mind. Satan is evil only because He did not make us and does not have our best interest in mind. But if we lived in a universe made by Satan, Satan would love us and have our best interests in mind, just as much as God would then hate us. Since there is no definition of good or evil that transcends these super-natural beings, the only way to tell the difference between them is by looking at which deity happens to have created us.

---

Hm. This is a pretty strict dualistic view of Christianity that I've never heard before. I have to tell you, it just doesn't match up with what I know of other Christian religions-- the idea that God is only 'good' because he made us.

It definitely doesn't match up to Mormonism's take on things. The Devil is the devil because he wants to make men miserable.

One of you mainstream Christian folks want to chime in here?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
*chime*

What Scott said.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
From Catholic and Protestant perspectives: what Scott said. This definition of God being neither good nor bad doesn't match the Bible at all.

So we have here a belief system that Catholics, Protestants, and LDS don't embrace. That's most of Christendom (and I don't think we'll find Orthodox or Coptic embrace it either). Why apply it to people who won't embrace it -- that is, why project it?

I suspect it's a wish to argue with those attitudes/beliefs, which are pretty awful and should be argued with. DevilDreamer, I have this question (not wanting an answer, not in such a public forum, just to consider): did anyone ever treat you in the way you're describing? Do as I say, don't think, don't question, believe the craziest things because I said so? I suspect many of us can relate to being on the receiving end of that. I sure can.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
I have lots of thoughts, but none that are better than what's already been said.

So I will just add this irrelevant post:

I found it really ironic that God would be described as doing "whatever the hell whenever the hell."
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Well, from a certain point of view, if God defines what is Good, then ANYTHING can feasibly be Good.

For example, God Y says that wearing the color orange is Good. Because God Y is omnipotent, omniscient, He knows. He makes up the rules that say Orange is Good.

But could He have also made up a rule that said Orange is Bad? If he could have, are Good and Bad really all that absolute?

If God says something is Good, why do we (or should we) trust Him?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
What if God defines what is good in the sense of being Goodness Itself?
 

---

Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
 
[rant] Parenting textbooks. What a load of old rubbish. I really cannot stand the classification that they apply, and the grief which such rigid pidgeonholing can cause.

I have yet to meet an authoritive parent, or a permissive one for that matter. Indeed with such nebulous characterisation who sets the benchmark? One persons loose-moral permissivity is anothers rigid authoritarianism.

On the same matter I can swing between Muhatma Ghandi and Pol Pot depending on whether the request is made with a smile or a scream (or my blood-sugar level). What does that make me - apart from completely normal? [/rant]

Sorry about that. BTW, from my dim and distant Sunday-school past, I rather thought that "God is Love".

I guess it all depend on your personal interpretation..... ahem.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
anti_maven: I'd say that what psychologists are trying to get at with studies of parenting types has more to do with general trends than specifics. We all realize that in real life most things are shades of gray (although, for the record, I have met parents that fall into all 4 of the aforementioned categories to the letter). I don't see how it hurts to have an ideal to shoot for and then when real life requires you to make modifications, you do it. I liken behavioral categories to the frictionless planes they have stored in the physics department.

As for God...

I have strayed from Christianity and Catholicism, but I have never stopped believing in a god and searching for a personal meaning for who and what he is. One of the things that I have come to realize is that for me, the analogy of God as parent doesn't work. I guess that's where I get into a problem with this whole line of reasoning.

On the one hand, God doesn't directly tell me what to do which makes me have trouble seeing him as authoritarian. If I listened to what other people told me he is telling me to do and took that to heart, things might be different, but I largely ignore those people.

On the other hand, God isn't permissive and his "free will" has many strings attached. He created us with longings to survive and to fit in and be with other people. We therefore have to do certain things and act certain ways to make that happen. His universe has rules that contain our behavior and it is only within those rules that we have freedom to choose. So I don't think he is permissive.

Either way, it's not about parenting to me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

One of the things that I have come to realize is that for me, the analogy of God as parent doesn't work.

---

Increasingly, this is true for me as well.



:waves at Christine from the opposite end of the religious spectrum:

Which is not to say that I don't view Him as my Heavenly Father-- just that I realize that He's MUCH more than a parent. And that maybe 'parent' (with modern implications) isn't His most important role.
 

---

Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Well, from a certain point of view, if God defines what is Good, then ANYTHING can feasibly be Good.

For example, God Y says that wearing the color orange is Good. Because God Y is omnipotent, omniscient, He knows. He makes up the rules that say Orange is Good.

But could He have also made up a rule that said Orange is Bad? If he could have, are Good and Bad really all that absolute?

If God says something is Good, why do we (or should we) trust Him?

---

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. If sin is viewed purely as disobedience to God, you end up with "good" as a concept completely relative to God. The idea that "without a concept of good and evil that transcends God and Satan, it is impossible to tell the difference between the two beings," is how it plays out logically in my mind, it's not anything I was taught. Yes, Bill, I realize that the scripture does not spell this out, and that no one teaches this, but if you look at the way Scott explains it, I think you'll be able to follow the logic.


Jim-Me
"What if God defines what is good in the sense of being Goodness Itself?"

Could you be a little more specific? Has God done this? We will need a definition of Goodness Itself before we can possibly continue, and if God were to ever do something that is at odds with the concept of Goodness Itself, does that make him evil? If we decide that one of God's rules goes against the concept of Goodness Itself, are we justified in breaking that rule? Even if it means we risk going to Hell? When following the concept of Goodness Itself should the risk of punishment even be considered?

If God is not a parent, but He still exhibits authoritarian behavior, and if the results of His authoritarian behavior has a similar impact on followers that it has on children, my point still stands.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I wasn't responding to your point

but what I meant was, if God *is* Goodness. Say if we said "Sean Astin defines the Character of Samwise Gamgee in his portrayal in LotR" we are not saying that Sean said what Sam should be, we are saying that he *was* what Sam should be. He showed us Sam by being Sam.

I think of God and Goodness the same way. He defines Goodness by *being* Goodness, not by making an arbitrary decision, nor by being beholden to some other, but merely by being Himself... as someone has already else said, by being Love.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Scott: I only had one quibble with your very good responses,

quote:

---

we believe that men are not saved by faith alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

I think of God and Goodness the same way. He defines Goodness by *being* Goodness, not by making an arbitrary decision, nor by being beholden to some other, but merely by being Himself... as someone has already else said, by being Love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
And if God is love... well, I suppose some proof is in order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
thanks friend! When I kill you with my trained bears, I'll use your quote in court to justify to your family how I had nothing but love in my heart. What? They want proof I acted out of love? Love and proof don't belong together... love is love, they must accept it.

Wow, okay, the more I think about what you just said, the more it upsets me. If someone claims to love you, don't you want proof? If this person that claims to love you does incredibly cruel things to you, are you to simply accept it, and say 'Oh, they love me, they must have my best interests in mind?' If you've never asked anyone to prove their love, I can't help but think there's something wrong with your view of the world, and that's it's only a matter of time before someone claims that they love you, when they really don't, and you get hurt, because you didn't require any proof to believe them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
If you've never asked anyone to prove their love, I can't help but think there's something wrong with your view of the world, and that's it's only a matter of time before someone claims that they love you, when they really don't, and you get hurt, because you didn't require any proof to believe them.

---

quote:

---

"All right," said Susan, "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need ... fantasies to make life bearable."
NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers?"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MECRY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH WITH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE WERE SOME SORT OF RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes. But people have got to believe that or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
And if God is love... well, I suppose some proof is in order.

---

Proof? Love? I don't know that the two words ever belong together.

---

Er...you have met the other half of the species, yes?


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

But people have got to believe that or what's the point—

---

quote:

---

I am very sorry you feel that way. I can, indeed, accept that people who have hurt me horribly did it out of love because they thought, however erroneously, that they were acting to protect or help me. And while you don't have to believe that people who are intentionally harming you love you, you also shouldn't need proof that someone who truly loves you does-- the proof is in the love itself.

---

So, do you believe that God loved the children he sent bears to eat, or the innocents he slaughtered or commanded the rape of, and we just can't understand the complexities of this love?

Moving away from the negative case, does the Old Testament God ever actually display love?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I actually think Prachett meant it to go in the direction you went, Tom... although the whole plot of the story revolves around the idea of human belief creating reality, too, so I guess he could have meant it that way as well. But, to me, that is a sign of a great truth-- when people of opposed philosophies, such as you and I, both sit up and go "aha!" I think we can safely say there's an important lesson therein.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
Love is an awfully complex topic, but in one sense I do see a need to require proof. The only thing is, that is way to simplistic to really encapsulate what you need to do when it comes to love, because if you don't put it out there and if you're not willing to accept it in return, then there will never be any proof no matter how long you wait or how hard you pray.

But I have seen people try to put it out there and wait and hope to get love back but instead they get abused and walked on.

I don't know how this relates to God, but I just wanted to point out some middle ground in the love/proof thing going on. "Proof" may not be the best word to describe the phenomenon, but I really do think that when you love someone, you show it.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's one thing to need proof, or evidence. It's quite another to actually insist on it. If you're at that point in a long-term, serious relationship*, I think you're in trouble.

*as I define such a subjective term.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Christine, I don't disagree. Perhaps "signs" is the best word for it. When a tracker sees signs that an animal is near, he follows the signs and often finds his quarry. He does not wait to rigorously prove that the broken branches are the result of his quarry passing through the area.

You can never receive proof that you are loved, but you can see signs of it all around you when you are.

Perhaps this is why Catholicism has so emphasized sacraments.

And to answer Squicky, even though he wasn't talking to me, I'd say creation, off hand, was an act of love.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
One of the things about love is that it is transformative. Loving someone, even someone who is very similar to yourself, changes you.

That's part of the whole deal with the parenting styles. Nearly all children either love their parents or want to love them. The things that go along with this change who the children are and who they are going to be. In a way, this also defines how they are going to approach love for the rest of their life.

The same can be said for people's conception of God. And the God that many of them say loves them is not a good nor loving entity.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Jim-Me.

I would like to make a general point that the concept of original sin is distinct from the concept of moral blame or guilt. Sin is separation from God. To many Christians, original sin is about the consequences of the Fall - that is, we as humans became separated from God. It's not that humans are imperfect because they cannot be "good" without God. It's that humans were created such that they were meant to be with God - to "walk in the Garden with Him." At some point, humanity became separated from God. This is a physical fact, much like someone who moves to Europe is separated from his original home. Without a ship or a plane (or something comparable), reunification is impossible.

To reference something Dana posted on another thread, the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the Incarnation was to end this separation. We believe this was necessary - not necessarily that nothing else would have served, but that something had to be done, and the one who had to do it was God.

What we have faith in is that God chose this mechanism for a reason, and that the reason is based on His love for us.

To pull a Jim-Me and reference Chesterton, the proper question is not "Why did we have to not eat the fruit to remain with God in the Garden, and why, having done so, were the Incarnation and subsequent events necessary to undo that damage and return to God and the Garden?" The proper question is, "Why were we given the Garden in the first place, and why are we given this chance to return to it?"
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

And to answer Squicky, even though he wasn't talking to me, I'd say creation, off hand, was an act of love.

---

quote:

---

But I have seen people try to put it out there and wait and hope to get love back but instead they get abused and walked on.

---

quote:

---

If you consider the role that God had designed, will-less slaves whose role was to worship him, I don't know that this was as much love as it was vanity.

---

quote:

---

I think - as a general matter with many, many exceptions, not as a universal truth - that many such people are those who think love is supposed to be proved, and that the desperate attempt to see it proved is what leads to accepting abuse. They are unable to believe love exists without proof, and therefore can't see the signs of love.

---

quote:

---

Or there are superficial demonstrations, like buying things, etc. that seem so big because they exist against a backdrop of neglect and abuse.

---

quote:

---

I know he doesn't, but it is only the disobedience of God by eating the forbidden fruit that made people into free-willed creatures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I know he doesn't, but it is only the disobedience of God by eating the forbidden fruit that made people into free-willed creatures.

---

quote:

---

This is essentially my point - that the concept of "proof" of love is one of the things that allows this to proceed. I've heard repeatedly from abuse victims that the abuse is a proof of how much he loves her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will B:
Jim-Me, thanks for telling us about your experience. It moves me.

---

Will, I just wanted you to know I saw this and I am glad it did.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

That makes no sense. If they didn't have free will before they ate it how did they choose to go against God's will by eating it?

---

quote:

---

That's not a matter of proof of love or not. It's one of accepting bad proof of love. Or rather, from a more psychologically sophisticated standpoint, a function of cognitive dissonance.

---

quote:

---

If the response to "Why do you think he loves you?" is "Here's all the things he does that shows that he puts my needs before his own.", is this a problem?

---

quote:

---

How can you tell if someone loves you without proof?

---

quote:

---

Should you just assume that everyone loves you?

---

No.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
MrSquicky, you are proof that we are not "will-less".

(Otherwise I'm just vigourously nodding along with Jim and Dagonee. And Dana.)

edit: I think you are taking the Adam/Eve/apple thing too literally. I, personally, see it (in part) as a metaphor for changing from a hunter/gatherer culture to an agrarian one. It isn't that "eating the apple" gave us the choice; it is what we choose.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
boots,
But according to the story, it is the snake that is responsible for my having. God was afraid of me gaining the knowledge of good and evil. The snake wanted me to have it. According to the story, and the idea that free will is a valuable thing, the snake is the good guy.

This is demonstrated very well by the very, very strong currents in Christianity of despising the self and of a dominance/submission relationship with God.

---

What do we choose? What is wrong with the choice (if they could be said to have made a choice) they made that it got them thrown out of the garden?

edit: One of the areas I'm most interested in in psychology is the effects of mythology. A lot of the interesting stuff happens at this level, at the level Jim referenced above with the quote from Hogfather.

I've posted at length why I find the pervaisive Adam and Eve myth to have very poor effects, with it's definition of paradise as static and materialistic, it's denigration of free-will, and it's celebration of absolute obedience to authority. These themes are carried out in many places throughout the Old testament and are one of the reason why I consider the God in it to be an evil one. If I were a real evil deity looking to subvert and enslave humans, these are the types of things I would propogate. I think this is especially telling in that a strong belief in the things I referenced correlate pretty well with the bad Christians, both currently and historically.

[ March 06, 2007, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Squick, you are missing the main point I was trying to make.

There is a difference between "evidence" (great word, Rakeesh) and proof. I can rattle off a list of things I do for Michelle. I can rattle off a much bigger list of things she does for me. And to every last one of them, I can come up with an ulterior motive that makes more logical sense than "Love". If you are looking for proof that something exists, you are approaching it from a skeptical standpoint. If you are approaching Love from a skeptical standpoint, you will always be able to find reasons other than Love for what you are seeing.

But see, people, for whatever reason, do not work well, are not complete... whatever you want to call it... without love. So when we don't have love... when we don't believe in it... we go looking for proof. We thirst for it-- or rather, I did. We find "proof" in all sorts of ways... and often harmful ones. Again, I know I did.

When we do believe in it, we see its effects all around us-- as you correctly state, it's transformative. You see it more clearly when you know it can happen to you. I don't know why... I just know that it is so... and you don't mistake mere attention for it any more.

Edit to add: the conversation is moving much more quickly than I can follow and this was in answer to something several posts back. forgive me for lagging
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Jim,
I don't see how you were answering DD's comments

quote:

---

If you've never asked anyone to prove their love, I can't help but think there's something wrong with your view of the world, and that's it's only a matter of time before someone claims that they love you, when they really don't, and you get hurt, because you didn't require any proof to believe them.

---

quote:

---

And to every last one of them, I can come up with an ulterior motive that makes more logical sense than "Love".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
What you call a "belief" in Love, Jim, I would simply call a more functional definition of "love."

---

quote:

---

Orignially posted by Mr Squicky:
You have a very different way of looking at the world than I do then

---

quote:

---

If you consider the role that God had designed, will-less slaves whose role was to worship him, I don't know that this was as much love as it was vanity.

---

quote:

---

I'd really like to know how you drew this conclusion. The scriptures don't support the idea that God created us without 'will.'

---

quote:

---

Tom, likely yes. But provable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Adam and Eve lived like animals in the field.

---

quote:

---

its definition of paradise as static and materialistic, it's denigration of free-will, and it's celebration of absolute obedience to authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
boots,
I don't know that I'll be able to convey the way I see this without spending a lot of time I don't have, but, short version, that myth (and the associated structures, supporting myths, and worldview) has, to me, an ongoing, profound, largely negative impact on our culture. I'll hunt up my very long posting from a thread from like 3 years ago that I think touch on this.

There are reasons for the evil in our culture and in your religion and the type of thinking typified and fostered by a mythological structure with this as its creation story seems to me to be one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I'm saying that those elements are in part due to

quote:

---

its definition of paradise as static and materialistic, it's denigration of free-will, and it's celebration of absolute obedience to authority.

---

Perhaps you don't see that in this particular myth or at least in the way that you interpret it. However, do you agree that these are bad things and that they have been and continue to be a part of many conceptions of Christianity?

---

quote:

---

And, indeed, it makes no sense to talk of the Sin of Adam if he and Eve indeed had know knowledge of right and wrong.

---

quote:

---

I do not agree that they are endemic to Christianity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Do most Christians believe that? Or do they believe that it is either written directly by God, dictated by him, or inspired by him?

And if that's the 15 month old, how old are we now? Are we going to get any older? If so, how?

---

I can't speak for most Christians. I would say an absolute "no" to the first two, and a qualified yes to the third.

I think we are about 7 now.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Going back to the story that Puppy told about his 15 month old daughter getting shots. To a certain extent, the "story" we have of God was recorded by the fifteen month old.

---

quote:

---

Do most Christians believe that? Or do they believe that it is either written directly by God, dictated by him, or inspired by him?

And if that's the 15 month old, how old are we now? Are we going to get any older? If so, how?

edit: One of the things that many types of Christians, both here and in the wider world, have said about atheists/people like me who don't believe in a transcendental, judging deity is that people can't be good without God making them/influencing them/being there to reward or punish. They've said that it is not in people's nature to want to do good.

To me, this is a sign of serious immaturity and it looks to me like it is specifically their belief in Christianity (their version) that is stunting their moral development.

---

quote:

---

If you wish to paint Christianity as a bogey then you will likely find Christians less than receptive to your message.

---

quote:

---

MrSquicky, I don't need to change your mind, but I am curious as to why you form your opinion of God from scripture you recognize as flawed? Or other people's opinions that you also recoginze as flawed? There are other choices. Your perception of God doesn't have to depend on any of that.

If you were finding God without all that stuff, what would you find on your own?

---

quote:

---

I think what Christianity means in self-denial and taking up your cross is essentially self defense: killing your false egos because if you don't they will kill you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I don't know that I'll be able to convey the way I see this without spending a lot of time I don't have, but, short version, that myth (and the associated structures, supporting myths, and worldview) has, to me, an ongoing, profound, largely negative impact on our culture. I'll hunt up my very long posting from a thread from like 3 years ago that I think touch on this.

There are reasons for the evil in our culture and in your religion and the type of thinking typified and fostered by a mythological structure with this as its creation story seems to me to be one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
How do you know that the fundamentalists aren't right? What if God really does dangle "sinners" over a fire and save only the ones it is his whim to save? What if nothing you do matters as to whether you'll go to heaven or not?

---

quote:

---

it's also what I think people should be talking about hwen they say no one can be good without God. the thing that is missing there is the word "enough".

---

quote:

---

Once you learn of love... really learn to receive it... obedience doesn't become a matter of obedience anymore-- it merely becomes a choice, which you make because you are loved and, as such, you can now love in return.

---

quote:

---

I think the point I may not be getting across is that God doesn't change, our understanding of God changes and (we hope) matures. It isn't the OT God vs Jesus. It is Jesus helping to change our understanding of God as recorded in the OT.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

it's also what I think people should be talking about hwen they say no one can be good without God. the thing that is missing there is the word "enough".

---

You are definitely wrong on this count. The statements have been akin to "If I didn't believe in God, I would go out and do X." Where X is something like murder people or rape or whatever. They are very, very clear on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think God wants us to be who we are really are. Free from all the crap that gets in the way of our being fully ourselves. I think that God doesn't want us to abandon our own judgement, but for our judgement to mature so that it is more God-like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

But is that actually even Christianity by the definition of any of the major sects of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

I think God wants us to be who we are really are. Free from all the crap that gets in the way of our being fully ourselves. I think that God doesn't want us to abandon our own judgement, but for our judgement to mature so that it is more God-like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
But Jim, you just said that our role is to obey God as well as, as far as I can tell, saying that I can't possibly be a healthy adult. How does that jive up with what boots said.

---

quote:

---

Squick, I, also, call it being an adult and a healthy individual. But I also think that the whole element of doing it yourself has a funddamental flaw... and it's also what I think people should be talking about hwen they say no one can be good without God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, that is not an umcommon understanding. I don't share it, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, that is not an umcommon understanding. I don't share it, though.

---

What that Adam and Eve could have spent a long period of time in the garden?

or

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament and God dictated them to him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
It's likely I misread you. I'll look at with the different perspective.

quote:

---

Squick, I, also, call it being an adult and a healthy individual. But I also think that the whole element of doing it yourself has a funddamental flaw... and it's also what I think people should be talking about hwen they say no one can be good without God.

---

Could you explain how this isn't saying that I can't be a healthy adult if I reject Jesus's sacrifice? If I can't do it myself _and incidentally, I pretty much agree with that particular sentiment), what else do I need?

---

Ok... I think I see where I was unclear.

Perhaps it's best if I, too, shift perspective.

Let's take it as a given that the story of Jesus is a pure myth, with no historical existence.

The story is the story of a god, who without reason or cause... perhaps I should say without any compulsion or obligation... loves his creation enough to, not only become one of them, and, through that, one *with* them, but to die for them, experiencing their lonliness and horror of death, so that they might be rejoined to him.

Again, the key being while they were *not* deserving. He doesn't do it because they ask him to, nor because He owes it to them, nor because they deserve t for being loyal and trustworthy. He does it because they need it and because He can do it. No other reason-- he simply loves them.

Now, we can believe in this thing-- that there is a Love which we do not deserve and cannot earn, or we can disbelieve it. I submit that a healthy and adult mind believes it. An unhealthy mind remains trapped in a loop to try to earn love, because humans, for whatever reason, hunger for it like they do food.

Whether it is metaphor or fact, I see the primary purpose of the incarnation and crucifixion as the description of an irrefutable love that applies to all people-- no one is so bad as to be beyond its reach, no one is so good as to be deserving of it, nor beyond need of the idea that they are loved.

Does that make more sense?

Put more simply, all humans need to be loved. Christianity, whether you view it as metaphor or sacrament, says, to the most monsterous of us: "you are loved... no matter what you have done. Receive that love and all will be well."

edit: once, long ago, you said I had a pelegian outlook... I think you see now why I disagreed with you on that
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:
Now, we can believe in this thing-- that there is a Love which we do not deserve and cannot earn, or we can disbelieve it. I submit that a healthy and adult mind believes it. An unhealthy mind remains trapped in a loop to try to earn love, because humans, for whatever reason, hunger for it like they do food.

Whether it is metaphor or fact, I see the primary purpose of the incarnation and crucifixion as the description of an irrefutable love that applies to all people-- no one is so bad as to be beyond its reach, no one is so good as to be deserving of it, nor beyond need of the idea that they are loved.

Does that make more sense?

Put more simply, all humans need to be loved. Christianity, whether you view it as metaphor or sacrament, says, to the most monsterous of us: "you are loved... no matter what you have done. Receive that love and all will be well."
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, that is not an umcommon understanding. I don't share it, though.

---

What that Adam and Eve could have spent a long period of time in the garden?

or

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament and God dictated them to him?

---

I meant the latter, but it could apply to both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that culture, like many others, recorded their mythology, their stories of their relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that culture, like many others, recorded their mythology, their stories of their relationship with God.

---

So do you consider parts or the whole of the Old Testament mythology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by vonk:
If believing that love can be earned and deserved is unhealthy, then I am in horrible health and proud of it. Of course, I'm in horrible health anyways, but that's just a series of bad habits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by vonk:
Ok. I could see how unconditional love can't be earned, it just is. I was actually having a conversation that came to a similar point the other day. But deserved? How is unconditional love not deserved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
It is a gift.

---

This. This. This.

Edit: It may be better to replace all the "you"s in the following with "me" and "I" because, really, I am talking about my experience again, which, as I said many times here, has colored my whole view of this thing.

As Kate has already said, saying that it is deserved implies that if you ceased to do something you wouldn't deserve it anymore. Thinking you deserve love is problematic in that it leads to thinking you can make someone love you-- after all you *deserve* it, right? And if only they'd just *see* that you deserve it, then they'd *really* love you. And when they don't see... maybe it 's because you just didn't do good enough... and you just need to try harder... and...

Thinking about it, perhaps this is the very mechanism by which the idea of proving love leads to the destructive and abusive behaviors Dagonee reference a couple of pages back.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
vonk: God loves everything tangible that he creates BECAUSE it is a part of him. I am sure if you asked God he could say he loves ever single thing he has created no matter how insignificant. The fact remains that he assembled it and it exists because of him.

I kind of see it as Ender describes it in EG. When you fully understand someone how can you do anything but love them? God understands everything and thus loves everyone as well as everything that exists within his realm of creation.

This love does not extend to actions that take place that involve his creations.

dkw: that definition is beyond me. It's worse that its a summary I am currently looking up all the definitions of the words I do not know (including the french phrase) as well as words that I understand but don't fit for alternate definitions.

If somebody in the meantime wants to accurately simplify it I would be GREATLY appreciative.
 

---

Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Harrumph. I deserve love way more than that rock does, plus I earned it!
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
BB, Dana's definition is richer, but this one (from the Concise OED) is okay:

traditional narrative usually* involving supernatural or fancied persons etc. and embodying popular ideas on natural or social phenomena.

*italics mine. When I speak of mythology in this context, I don't generally mean "fancied" persons.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I don't think there is a problem with thinking that you are worthy or deserve love. The problem is thinking that you will get this from a specific person. There is a need to realize that some people will not love you. But that's not because you don't deserve it or aren't worthy of it. Many times, it's because they have problems themselves.

I think the idea that so-and-so doesn't love me because I don't deserve it is a really awful one. If, on the other hand, you're talking about not being able to force someone to love you, than sure. But I don't see how that fits in the God thing.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
BlackBlade, how’s this: a myth is a story with central importance to the identity of a people. It tells them who they are and why. It is repeated often, particularly during rituals or ceremonies.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I use a definition of mythology similar to Joseph Campbell's and it is not a concept that can be simplified much more than that. I also agree with him in that one of the problems with Western society's conception of religion is that they don't understand the role of myth and link it to falsehoods.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
BB, or how about "a story that conveys truth through the idea and emotional impact of its plot, rather than being a mere factual account."


Squick, the God thing comes in because some of us (and here I mean "me") are remarkably adept at convincing ourselves we are not loved. There is nothing I can do to a supernatural, omnipotent being to make him/her/it have an ulterior motive for loving me. It is simply, as Kate said, a gift to be received.
 

---

Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
God just wants you for the social status. You're a trophy follower.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I feel the need at this time to re-emphasize some things I said... specifically:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:
As for the Lewis quote... I believe Scott R posted it and, while I like that one,I view it very differently than you do and, indeed, than it reads. That is drastically colored by what I think Christianity means when it talks about dying to yourself and, in doing so, gaining your true self and true freedom. I do not know if my view is orthodox or would be applauded or derided nor by whom. I don't know for sure how to even explain it except to say that I think what Christianity means in self-denial and taking up your cross is essentially self defense: killing your false egos because if you don't they will kill you. That's a ludicrously simplistic summary, though, and admittedly VERY colored by my personal journey.

---

quote:

---

My view of God is a view of love. I do not believe in a man up in the sky looking down on me, but I do believe in a transcendent love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:
Christine, for clarity's sake, I think it's unhealthy to be unable to accept love without deserving/earning it. This is, to my understanding, a common psychological idea and I 'm fairly sure I'm not alone in this.

What I am saying is that Christ's sacrifice, even if you view it as a mere myth, is precisely about love that you don't deserve. If you don't believe it happened, that's not unhealthy. Not believing in the particular point of the story I am emphasizing-- that love can not be earned, contracted for, or deserved-- *is* unhealthy, IMO.

Don't know if that makes it better, but hopefully it at least makes it clearer.

---

quote:

---

Yes, if we believe those things are true, those nine things I listed lose validity. Well, some of them do. I am not sure that this concept of goodness that exists alongside God can forbid homosexuality. Show me how/why this concept of goodness deems homosexuality as a crime worthy of death. Use your own judgment now, use this concept of goodness you described and tell me why homosexuality is evil.

---

quote:

---

So I'm glad it is possible to believe that a behavior should not be permitted among members of your faith, and should not be promoted by your faith, without believing that the practitioners of that behavior outside your faith are inherently evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:
DD, you are talking blythely about what Christians believe, yet here stand a whole slew of Christians (edit to add: of varying denominations, intensities, and levels of orthodoxy) who are saying "We don't believe that." And your response is to say that we are in denial?

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puppy:
It's odd that you would ask me to do this, given that I have never claimed that homosexuality is evil.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
I have been reading Hans Küng's "On Being a Christian" as a Lenten devotion. It has been rather illuminating, although far from totaly so. Next year I plan to read some Paul Tillich, and something else the year after that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:
DD, you are talking blythely about what Christians believe, yet here stand a whole slew of Christians (edit to add: of varying denominations, intensities, and levels of orthodoxy) who are saying "We don't believe that." And your response is to say that we are in denial?

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

---

Jim-Me said it best, I think. I've been watching the thread, and DD, it seems that you're pretty much convinced as to what "Christians" as a whole believe, and you also seem to think that the Christians here who don't believe that way don't fully understand their religion. It's a little frustrating.

-pH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:

I am surprised at how quickly so many here jumped to say that there are things in the Bible that are not true (I mean, wow, how do you know what to trust and what not to trust? I am surprised, but I do not think it is a bad thing).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:


A lot of your arguments for God not being authoritarian are based around personal experience (which is fine and very interesting) and picking and choosing which parts of the scripture to believe and which parts to ignore (which is slightly frustrating, because part of my argument for denying God as an authoritarian would call for a (what I was taught to be very blasphemous) rewrite of the Bible, cutting out all those nasty, manipulative, authoritarian parts).

---

quote:

---

I used to own that... I wasn't able to get past the first few pages, though. I didn't find it offensive (I undertsand he was denounced as a theologian some time after writing that book, but I don't know if it was for what he wrote there)-- just dry. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
DD: I would suggest not using passages from the Law of Moses to give context to God's will concerning Christians since Christ's time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puppy:


DevilDreamt, not all Christians think of those stories as being both literally true and properly understood. There is plenty of room in Mormon belief, for instance, to think that the story of Elisha and the bears was the ancient equivalent of an urban legend that should not have been included, or to think that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was minor corruption in the text that didn't reflect the original truth of the story. (After all, who said that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart? Did God tell Moses what He was doing? If so, when? It seems likely that this was an assumption made by the writer of the passage, and not a true aspect of the event.)

In any case, despite your laundry list, I don't believe that God defines goodness arbitrarily. I believe that goodness is an eternal concept that has existed forever, alongside God, and that God's choice to adhere to goodness is part of what makes Him God. Not the other way around.

I also believe that God is operating on a macro level that we often fail to understand. If allowing suffering to occur on Earth — or even if causing suffering to happen on Earth — is ultimately for our good on the eternal scale, then the validity of your examples dissipates.

For instance, I'm sure my 15-month-old daughter thought my wife was pretty bad today for taking her to the doctor to get five shots. From her perspective, that was unmitigatedly evil, and she let us know. However, from my wife's perspective, not getting her those shots would have been far worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

As I said at the start of this post, we all interpret and how we do so reflects on what we want to get from Scripture and our relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
I wasn’t. At least not exactly. I was quoting scripture to show God’s PoV on the issue of homosexuals at a given time.

---

quote:

---

DD, you're (in my opinion) missing a big step. When you quote Scripture, you are not "showing God's point of view". You are showing what a group of people recorded as God's point of view. Their understanding of God's point of view. Inspired, certainly. But still "filtered" through a specific culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
I wasn’t. At least not exactly. I was quoting scripture to show God’s PoV on the issue of homosexuals at a given time.

---

DD, you're (in my opinion) missing a big step. When you quote Scripture, you are not "showing God's point of view". You are showing what a group of people recorded as God's point of view. Their understanding of God's point of view. Inspired, certainly. But still "filtered" through a specific culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

The Bible isn't unreliable - it just takes a great deal more work to understand it than many people suppose. In the Catholic tradition, Scripture is only to be understood in the light of our teachings and traditions. Frankly it was a long time before we let people without the proper training read it at all! Of course, most people weren't literate anyway.

---

quote:

---

There are good motivations and bad motivations for everything...

---