Good Christian Love
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: Good Christian Love
(28-08-2014 04:56 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 11:49 AM)phil.a Wrote:  And she'll still love him, because she can't help it, he is her child so she is biologically programmed that way.

I can assure you that this is not always true. My mother was NOT biologically programmed to love me...in fact, I don't think she is capable of loving anyone other than herself.

Unfortunately this is too true with some people Hug

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 02:46 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(28-08-2014 03:43 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 12:04 PM)phil.a Wrote:  A religious fundamentalist can't do that. They lack the capacity to think rationally (examine cause and effect) so they lack the capacity to differentiate such things and simply have to go on what their religion tells them is unacceptable.
I don't agree with this either. They (more accurately "some") may lack the capacity to think rationally about religion specifically, but I don't think "capacity" is the right word. They have the capacity, they just don't use it because they are blinded by fear and emotions.

OK, that's just a different way of saying the exact same thing. Rational thinkers have an extra cognitive dimension over pre-rational thinkers, and it's "in" that cognitive dimension that they actually step back from embeddedness in their feelings and take a relationship to their feelings. A rational thinker has his feelings, a pre-rational thinker is had by his feelings. So insofar as someone is still "blinded" by his feelings, what that's saying is that the rational cognitive dimension has not yet fully emerged in their brain.

The only difference between our positions seems to be that I'm saying that emergence of the rational cognitive dimension hasn't yet fully happened in these people, whereas you seem to be saying that they've got perfect rational minds, but that these minds have been corrupted in some way. If that's the case, do you have any facts and theories to support the idea? (I feel I can substantiate my position using various developmental psychology theories).


Quote: The problem I'm having is why the whole thought of disowning their child doesn't become a stronger blinder that overrules the fear and emotions. They can somehow do wrong to their child that they see physically standing before them - the child that they have raised and lived with for years and supposedly loved - just to avoid doing wrong to a being that they can't see and only believe exists. I was once a believer too and lesser cognitive dissonance brought me out. How strong does it have to get for these people before they open their eyes? Dodgy I just can't excuse these people.


Well I am a great fan of fully rational thinking, which to me means basically saying - whatever happens should have happened, e.g. that there will always be a perfect cause and effect argument to explain why that was the only possible outcome. This includes human behaviour, I don't think we are exempt from cause and effect.

My explanation for the above would be that it seems likely that the feelings of pain from throwing their child out of the home weren't sufficient to outweigh the feelings of fear and shame of allowing him to stay. This could be due to the intensity of the feelings around the religious conditioning, or it could be due to another factor.

A capacity to emotionally explore the "future" is something else that only really emerges with rational thinking. The act of chucking one's own child out of the home is disturbing for a rational thinker because he can actually "feel" into a future without the child, e.g. touch in to the pain of the child's absence even before it's happened. A pre-rational thinker won't have such a capacity, so there's a risk they'll chuck the child out without realising how much pain will come up in the future as a consequence of having to mourn the child's absence.

Against that idea, it would be a bit pointless to judge the pre-rational person for taking a decision which is going to cost them so dearly - they are already going to pay quite severely for their poor decision.

I understand it's easy to feel angry about this sort of thing, but I think the anger usually comes from erroneously expecting other people to have the same capacities for rational and ethical behaviour as we do. Against that assumption, their behaviour seems really evil, but actually I think the perception of evil is created by our erroneous expectations of their capacities.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 03:17 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(28-08-2014 03:54 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 01:06 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Yup - with respect to this situation it's reasonable to do so. A pre-rational thinker receives their morality from an external authority, whereas a rational thinker ethically discerns (works it out themselves).
Yes, except when religion is introduced. Because religion has the magic, faith, god's incomprehensible-by-human-minds excuse plan, blah, blah, blah... it trumps all rationality. Having god as an external moral authority is not representative of a particular level of cognitive ability. Many faithful are quite rational about everything else. With religion comes "leave your thinking at the door" so, while rationality is technically still available for use, they don't even consider using it when it comes to religion. To them, it's not applicable.

I think this is perhaps taken care of by the idea of different "lines" of psychological development, basically we can be at different levels of psychological development in different domains in our lives.

I think perhaps Jean Piagets model describes overall cognitive complexity, whereas Lawrence Kohlberg's model specifically describes moral development (so actually is probably the most relevant lens to look at this situaiton with).

The stages in the separate models tend to go hand in hand, but there can be quite big mis-matches. An example might be Joseph Mengele - at fully rational levels of cognitive development (has scientific knowledge) but at very low levels of moral development.

I think it's an error to assume that just because someone has good rational thinking skills with mathematics that he ipso facto has the same cognitive capacity to bring to bear on other aspects of his life.

Looking at my personal situation, I think I am probably at quite a high level of development in terms of ethics, ironically - due to my homosexuality.

The reason for this is that whilst I wanted to have sex I couldn't do so until I knew that it was acceptable to do that, and societies taboos were telling me that it wasn't acceptable. That left me with no other option other than to derive my own ethical position on it, that effectively took a whole decade because it requires a high level of moral development to be able to do that from first principles. So my situation actually resulted in a great deal of reflection on ethics - hence development in that particular domain of my life.

In other areas of my life, I'm perhaps at lower than average levels of development, simply because of all the attention that went on ethical development in my youth.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 06:25 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(28-08-2014 12:17 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  For me~ it's this - in Christianity there is a dual message one of hatred, one of love.

Love your neighbor as yourself
Jesus loves you
God made everyone perfect

And all sorts of other happy bullshit, but she didn't choose the happy path- which also would have fit into her religious thinking.

She chose the ' you are evil, going against gods will' etc path.

She could have said "it's all part of gods plan " and accepted her son, or at the very least not kicked him out of the house.

Phil- please explain why she didn't take this path? It would have still remained within her religious framework 'god doesn't make mistakes, it's all part of gods plan, etc'

Taking that religious route would also permit her to keep her family in tact, and please Jesus.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 06:55 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(28-08-2014 03:43 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 12:04 PM)phil.a Wrote:  ...
Although don't you see that for a religious fundamentalist, it's potentially as disturbing to have a homosexual son as to have a pedophile son or a murderer son? That's how "gay" can actually appear in their (rather ignorant) awareness.
My next sentence was " But I'm not sure I could disown them even then." So it doesn't matter in my mind if they do see homosexuality that way. And I also don't agree that they do. What they "see" is their god says it's wrong. Therefore, it's wrong to them (level of wrong doesn't matter) and they could possibly go to hell for not standing up against it.

(28-08-2014 12:04 PM)phil.a Wrote:  A religious fundamentalist can't do that. They lack the capacity to think rationally (examine cause and effect) so they lack the capacity to differentiate such things and simply have to go on what their religion tells them is unacceptable.
I don't agree with this either. They (more accurately "some") may lack the capacity to think rationally about religion specifically, but I don't think "capacity" is the right word. They have the capacity, they just don't use it because they are blinded by fear and emotions. The problem I'm having is why the whole thought of disowning their child doesn't become a stronger blinder that overrules the fear and emotions. They can somehow do wrong to their child that they see physically standing before them - the child that they have raised and lived with for years and supposedly loved - just to avoid doing wrong to a being that they can't see and only believe exists. I was once a believer too and lesser cognitive dissonance brought me out. How strong does it have to get for these people before they open their eyes? Dodgy I just can't excuse these people.

Considering religious people get taught that god comes before everything, including family, it is not surprising that some can behave like this family did towards their son.

When I was still believing the wife and I had a discussion on the Abraham sacrificing Isaac because god told him to. My wife totally freak out when I told her that is god asked me to hurt any of my kids I would tell him to go f-himself. That made for a fun night.

On another note, my oldest had some major issues with her sexuality. For a while she thought she was gay, then not and back and forth. Wife freaked out. I though it was going to get to the point she was going to try and "fix" my daughter. Before it got to that point I told my wife if she could not love and accept our daughter if she did indeed happen to be gay then she should leave, because I was not going to let her "fix" our daughter. During that time I had some good talks with my daughter and let her know that I would love her no matter who she loved. I also encouraged her to take her time and sort it out on her own terms. I am not sure where she is on this right now. She dated a boy for a while, not she just hangs out with friends.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like wazzel's post
29-08-2014, 06:56 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(29-08-2014 06:25 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 12:17 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  For me~ it's this - in Christianity there is a dual message one of hatred, one of love.

Love your neighbor as yourself
Jesus loves you
God made everyone perfect

And all sorts of other happy bullshit, but she didn't choose the happy path- which also would have fit into her religious thinking.

She chose the ' you are evil, going against gods will' etc path.

She could have said "it's all part of gods plan " and accepted her son, or at the very least not kicked him out of the house.

Phil- please explain why she didn't take this path? It would have still remained within her religious framework 'god doesn't make mistakes, it's all part of gods plan, etc'

Taking that religious route would also permit her to keep her family in tact, and please Jesus.

Because she does not believe god makes people gay. She says so in the video.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 07:30 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(29-08-2014 02:46 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Against that idea, it would be a bit pointless to judge the pre-rational person for taking a decision which is going to cost them so dearly - they are already going to pay quite severely for their poor decision.

I understand it's easy to feel angry about this sort of thing, but I think the anger usually comes from erroneously expecting other people to have the same capacities for rational and ethical behavior as we do. Against that assumption, their behavior seems really evil, but actually I think the perception of evil is created by our erroneous expectations of their capacities.

Phil
I think anger against this behavior serves a greater context, if people can be brought to realize, and recoil at such aberrant behavior, then society as a whole begins rejecting this type of behavior in greater numbers and then such behavior becomes ever more uncomfortable to be engaged in.
Perhaps in a different world, this woman would have been presented with the ugliness of this particular belief system and she never would have engaged it to begin with, thus society, and her son, benefits.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
29-08-2014, 07:53 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
I would like to caution us all against generalizing Christians from the very poor reaction of this particular set of parents. Secular, Hindu, Muslim and other parents may react the same way and just not be captured on camera. On the other hand, there may be some Christian parents, who while struggling with the idea may deal with it more gracefully.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
29-08-2014, 07:55 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(29-08-2014 07:53 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  I would like to caution us all against generalizing Christians from the very poor reaction of this particular set of parents. Secular, Hindu, Muslim and other parents may react the same way and just not be captured on camera. On the other hand, there may be some Christian parents, who while struggling with the idea may deal with it more gracefully.

Doc

That is why I said "....and THESE Christians."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 07:57 AM
RE: Good Christian Love
(29-08-2014 07:53 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  I would like to caution us all against generalizing Christians from the very poor reaction of this particular set of parents. Secular, Hindu, Muslim and other parents may react the same way and just not be captured on camera. On the other hand, there may be some Christian parents, who while struggling with the idea may deal with it more gracefully.

Doc

This is of course undeniably true.


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: