posted
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.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.”
I don't see a conflict between these two. Doctrinally, I don't agree with the second...but they're not necessarily in conflict.
Mormons believe that access to Christ's saving grace comes through faith and obedience to God. It's that obedience thing that doctrinally sets us apart from what you were taught-- we believe that men are not saved by faith alone.
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.”
I've always liked this quote from C.S. Lewis. I think it defines what we Christians are supposed to give up to Christ:
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.”
DD, can you explain what you mean by 'original sin?' Mormons differentiate between the doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of the natural man being in opposition to God.
Sin, for Mormons, means knowing that something is wrong, and still doing it. There are also transgressions; unknowingly being disobedient to God's commandments. There is some slippage between the two terms. Both warrant the grace of Jesus Christ to be forgiven. Both warrant faith in Christ and obedience to the commandments of God in order to obtain forgiveness.
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: I only had one quibble with your very good responses,
quote:we believe that men are not saved by faith alone.
I think more accurately it should be said, "We believe that with true faith the works will follow."
The works themselves do not save us, but they certainly exist where true faith in Christ is found.
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."
So in a sense we are indeed, "Saved by grace alone, and not by works at all."
If we truly have faith in Christ, we will striver to keep his commandments and his grace is sufficient to save people of that nature.
-------
Jim-Me: That was a beautiful description of the relationship between God and Goodness. I heartily agree with it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how it's anything more than wishful thinking. And if God is love... well, I suppose some proof is in order.
I do not think God is pure love for the following:
1. Flooding the world.
2. Hardening the Pharaoh's heart and then punishing the people of Egypt for it.
3. Favoring the Jews exclusively in the Old Testament.
4. Making homosexuality a sin (seriously, I don’t see how homosexuality being a sin could do anything other than bring misery and suffering into the world. If those who want to be are simply allowed to be, what harm would occur?)
5. Allowing that BS to happen to Job’s family. Even though Job was not killed, his family was, and they are people too, you know. And even though Job got to have even more children then ever, I don’t think that made his dead children feel any better about their lot in life.
6. Jesus withers a fig tree for no good reason. If he is a good and loving deity, what’s the deal with killing trees just because it’s not fig season? Buddha never would have done that.
7. I definitely remember God ordering the slaughter of a certain city, and then when the people receiving his orders took pity on some of the women, children, and livestock to be slaughtered and made them slaves instead, God became very upset. No source here, perhaps someone else can help.
8. Lamentations 3:38 “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not both evil and good?” this makes God look like he is both … evil and good. I’m not sure that pure love should be making evil.
9. 2 Kings 2:23-24 - “23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.”
I don’t have a Bible on hand, so I’m quoting this from BibleGateway.com. I am also double checking these on other cites. Anyway, if you have a real Bible and it reads significantly differently, let me know. Loving God sends bear to kill children for being children. Very loving indeed. I suppose the next time some children insult me, I can sick my trained bears on them and I will only be following God’s loving example?
Anyway, I bet there are other people on here who can add to these examples of why God is not pure love.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Christine: you are right - a good analogy, but what I object to is when these generalisations are presented as the norm for human behaviour and thus set up unrealistic expectations - especially in parenting.
Devil Dreamt - could it be that these things never happened and are just stories to make a point that if you are a follower of God he'll look out for you?
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 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.
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
On the contrary, I spent about 30 years of my life waiting for someone to prove that they loved me...that is to say, prove I was loveable... hoping against all hope that *this* time I'd found the one and it would be ironclad and I could believe in it.
That philosophy wasted decades of my life, contributed to the ruination of my ex-wife's, wreaked havoc on my children's, and, I truly believe, cost me countless opportunities, including having my dream career. It also cost me thousands of dollars (no exaggeration) in therapy and left me a divorced, unemployed, and bankrupt father of five.
But just as I was reaching that benighted state, thank God and my wonderful therapist, Katrena, I caught a clue: love is *not* something that you can prove, not something you can earn, and certainly not something you can stand there and measure in the calculating way you suggest. It's something you can accept or reject. It's something you can receive and return or harden yourself against and rebut. It's something you can approach with trust or disbelief. It is, as you point out, something you can be deceived about or something you can bet your very soul on.
But whatever it may be, there is not enough proof in the world to make anyone believe in it who doesn't... nor to make me disbelieve in it as I have now experienced it. You see, in a very brief time after learning to receive love, I found it... the real deal... and it has changed everything. God? I doubt Him sometimes these days... but Love is real and I have learned to rest in it. As C. S. Lewis said through his imagined saint in The Great Divorce:" I am in Love, now, and out of [Love] I shall not go."
I should thank you, though, because I *do*, now, understand something I never did before: all those people who talk about faith being belief in something in spite of reason. They are wrong to say what they do, but I understand what they mean, now. There is a difference between belieiving without reason and believing without proof. I have reasons for believing in Love, but they are not proof-- there is no proof-- and I can't force anyone else to see love no matter how hard I try. But I have seen it and I *know* it is real. I can show it to someone who believes in it, and I can help someone who doesn't believe in it to see it if they want to see it, but a skeptic can *always* find a reason to disbelieve it. I know-- I did... again, not with God, but with Love.
This is why Faith is a virtue: because ultimately you have to trust something to accomplish anything... but if you will trust just a little-- if you have faith the size of a grain of mustard-- more than moving mountains, more than miracles, you will find that you have a will of your own and that you can impose it on the world around you, rather than being driven to do things.
It is not irrational to hold on to knowledge when doubt comes along-- and doubt will. I now have a wonderful girlfriend who loves me very much. So much so that I doubt it often-- I can't understand why she would do the things she does. My mind comes up with all kinds of reasons-- perfectly logical explanations of why and how she must be doing what she does. How she is only doing it because I do *that* back for her... or because she gets *this* bonus out of it... or because she's somehow broken.
But I remind myself that she simply loves me. It is not in spite of reason. I have every reason to believe it, in spite of all the skeptical arguments-- each one of those arguments unassailable through logic. But it is, in fact, entirely unreasonable to approach Love as a logic puzzle or a mathematical theorem. It is, in fact, entirely reasonable and rational, and, most importantly, sane, to merely believe that you are loved and receive the bounty.
The beauty of G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy is that he rightly and rationally and in perfectly logical manner insists that Man needs more than logic. The beauty of Terry Prachett's Hogfather is that it makes the same point from a negative perspective: even though these things don't exist, to be human is to believe in them. It is human to have faith. It is human to believe in things, not without *reason*, but without *proof*.
But perhaps Prachett has said it best in Susan's talk with Death in Hogfather:
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:But people have got to believe that or what's the point—
I love Hogfather, too. It actually helped me codify my concept of "contexts" back when I was first thinking about them. Of course, I took it in the exact opposite direction that you did -- even if we wound up in roughly the same place.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And to answer Squicky, even though he wasn't talking to me, I'd say creation, off hand, was an act of love.
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
"I'm sorry I got so mad, baby, but I love you so much and sometimes it makes me crazy!" I was in family court about 20 times during my prosecution internship; I heard some variation of this about half the times I was there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
I would guess he doesn't consider that to be God's role in creation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
I'd say it is the exact opposite. In most of these cases in my experience, there was a complete lack of demonstrations of love, but rather the assertion/assumption "We're in love."
"Why are you with him? He treats you like garbage." "Because he loves me." "How? He doesn't do anything that demonstates this." "He just does."
Or there are superficial demonstrations, like buying things, etc. that seem so big because they exist against a backdrop of neglect and abuse.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or there are superficial demonstrations, like buying things, etc. that seem so big because they exist against a backdrop of neglect and abuse.
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.
If Jim-Me is right that love can't be proven, then it's no wonder that mind-boggling things are accepted as proof of love.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
When I write a program, I don't do it because I love the program. I do it because it serves my needs. If that program develops sentience and I punish it for this by removing it from my system, do I love the program? Did I ever, or did I just like what it did for me?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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?
How can you tell if someone loves you without proof? Should you just assume that everyone loves you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Without knowledge of good and evil, there is no choice. They had no more discrimination nor free will than an animal does. In the Bible, God is afraid of them specifically because this action made them like him, in knowing good and evil.
edit: And maybe I'm wrong, but isn't regarding the Garden of Eden story about the rise of consciousness/free will a common way of looking at the myth, even in Christian circles?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
I never said this phenomenon was proof of the idea that there is no such thing as proof of love. If there's no proof of love, then all things are bad proof of love. I was reconciling a seeming inconsistency between this concept and the idea that lack of proof leads one open to abuse.
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?
Of course it is, which is entirely consistent with everything I've been saying here.
quote:How can you tell if someone loves you without proof?
Jim-Me already answered this, quite well, with his distinction between signs and proof.
quote:Should you just assume that everyone loves you?
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
with that then. It seemed clear to me that DD was using proof there in a less strict way than you are and would include signs and evidence in there.
I'm not saying what you said didn't have merit, but it didn't answer what you seemed to be trying to answer with it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you call a "belief" in Love, Jim, I would simply call a more functional definition of "love."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And to every last one of them, I can come up with an ulterior motive that makes more logical sense than "Love".
You have a very different way of looking at the world than I do then, or perhaps a different way of loving.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe he's speaking of individual datapoints for each action, and deliberately taking them in isolation. Taken from the full body of evidence, "love" would seem to be a very likely explanation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Jim-Me.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
