The traditional family

[stevevw]

You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but other people are entitled to think they are ridiculous or absurd. That is pluralism.

People are entitled to their opinions. But I find it interesting that when a Christian may call out a sinner all hell breaks loose. But when anyone else speaks their vitriol on social media about Christians it is an entitlement.

This is more an evangelical fundamentalist strawman than a fair treatment of what modern, non-Christian people actually believe.

Christians believing in the laws/morals of God isn't being a fundamentalist. It is a mainstream position. It isn't a straw-man position that non-Christians believe there is no objective morality. It is a fact. If they believed in objective morality then they would by logic have to believe in a moral lawgiver such as God. That would then mean they are not a non-Christian.

How about the principle of harm? That one goes back to long before your Bible was written down.

Whose measure of harm though. What you think is harmful someone else may thing is not. But I agree using some measure of harm can help determine some truths about what is good and bad regarding human well-being. But it does open the door for consequential morality which is hard to agree on what is the best moral position for all people.

But lets use an example of harm. If the research shows that fatherless families are no good for a child's development and can harm them would you agree that families need a father. Or if single parenting harmed children does this mean that we should aim to support families staying together. The problem I see is even when the research may show that a certain position is harmful people still ignore this in favor of their own ideology.

For example because gender ideology is opposed to the mother and father roles, this undermines what is best and least harmful for the family according to the research. So this negates the principle that harm should be a measure as personal ideologies trump any chance of harm being used as a basis for what is right and wrong but rather supports subjective morality. Thus subjective morality can undermine what is best for families.

And people like me are sick of hearing it because its a cop-out excuse for bigotry.

I agree.

 

[pleinmont]

Some Christians who give it large about there faith are often the ones whose lives don't bear scrutiny.

 

[stevevw]

Though this is off topic I noticed Bonhoeffer being mentioned. I guess it can relate in that the State can dictate whether religious belief is allowed and what status and setup the family should be by their powerful position in being able to implement their own views about what is best in society.

I was listening to a video with author and speaker Eric Metaxas on this topic the other day. He talks about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and how in the 1930's before the 2nd WW he stood up to the Nazi's who were trying to install this big brother type government in Germany before they tried to impose this on other countries during the war. He said the first thing that the state does in setting this up is to oppress the church as they see the church as a threat to having ultimate control.

They first do this by opposing the churches moral and social position. Taking opposing positions on issues like marriage, families and child upbringing. Forcing their view onto the church, bullying and denying the church any say in the matter. Bonhoeffer seen this as wrong as the church was separate from the state and should have the right to its views. It is the moral conscience for society and to keep the state in check. When the state does something wrong the church is there to point this out. Denying their rights is seen as detrimental to a healthy society.

Eric Metaxas sees a similar thing happening today especially in western nations where governments are putting out policies that are in opposition to the church and creating a discourse that is anti church/religion. This is the first step towards a totalitarian regime where the church is suppressed as they are the biggest threat to the state. It may not be happening as dramatically as in Germany in the 30's and 40's but it is slowly and surely happening today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m9Jn6v5i6Y

 

[FireDragon76]

Though this is off topic I noticed Bonhoeffer being mentioned. I guess it can relate in that the State can dictate whether religious belief is allowed and what status and setup the family should be by their powerful position in being able to implement their own views about what is best in society.

I was listening to a video with author and speaker Eric Metaxas on this topic the other day. He talks about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and how in the 1930's before the 2nd WW he stood up to the Nazi's who were trying to install this big brother type government in Germany before they tried to impose this on other countries during the war. He said the first thing that the state does in setting this up is to oppress the church as they see the church as a threat to having ultimate control.

They first do this by opposing the churches moral and social position. Taking opposing positions on issues like marriage, families and child upbringing. Forcing their view onto the church, bullying and denying the church any say in the matter. Bonhoeffer seen this as wrong as the church was separate from the state and should have the right to its views. It is the moral conscience for society and to keep the state in check. When the state does something wrong the church is there to point this out. Denying their rights is seen as detrimental to a healthy society.

Eric Metaxas sees a similar thing happening today especially in western nations where governments are putting out policies that are in opposition to the church and creating a discourse that is anti church/religion. This is the first step towards a totalitarian regime where the church is suppressed as they are the biggest threat to the state. It may not be happening as dramatically as in Germany in the 30's and 40's but it is slowly and surely happening today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m9Jn6v5i6Y

Metaxas doesn't understand Bonhoeffer and misrepresents him. Bonhoeffer was a European neo-orthodox Lutheran, Metaxas is an evangelical fundamentalist. As a result, Metaxas misunderstands the contextual differences between the present situation and the past. If anything, his religion is more like the Nazi's than it is like Bonhoeffer's.

 

[stevevw]

Metaxas doesn't understand Bonhoeffer and misrepresents him. Bonhoeffer was a European neo-orthodox Lutheran, Metaxas is an evangelical fundamentalist. As a result, Metaxas misunderstands the contextual differences between the present situation and the past. If anything, his religion is more like the Nazi's than it is like Bonhoeffer's.

I think Metaxas was using his example to show how the state can oppress free speech, belief and the church and how Bonhoeffer stood up against that oppression by calling out the Nazi's oppression of free speech and the church. It wasn't about what sort of belief he had but the importance of a free society that allows religious belief. He also uses William Wilberforce as another example who based on his beliefs stood up against the government for the oppression of blacks with slavery.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There's a book called The Way We Never Were, written by a historian Stephanie Coontz.

https://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465098835

Most of the stuff about "traditional families" is based on nostalgia and reactionary ideology. There were plenty of divorces and "broken homes" back in the day. My own grandfather was raised by his grandparents because his parents separated and his father ran off.

The tradition family is still the anchor of society.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think Metaxas was using his example to show how the state can oppress free speech, belief and the church and how Bonhoeffer stood up against that oppression by calling out the Nazi's oppression of free speech and the church. It wasn't about what sort of belief he had but the importance of a free society that allows religious belief. He also uses William Wilberforce as another example who based on his beliefs stood up against the government for the oppression of blacks with slavery.

I agree that religious freedom is important, but Metaxas doesn't seem to really believe in religious freedom so much as he seem to believe in privileging evangelical Christian culture.

It's ironic you mention Wilberforce. He was one of those insufferable "social justice warriors" that conservatives usually detest.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, I don't think so. "Traditional family" basically means mother, father, and children. It does not exclude relatives, and in many cultures includes them.

A single parent household isn't a traditional family; a household with homosexual parentage isn't a traditional family; an orphanage isn't a traditional family, etc. It's not "whatever the societal norms are of the time and place." Indeed the fact that you need a mother and a father to conceive a child ensures that this is a universal model.

Only according to the societal norms of our culture. It's certainly not traditional for the Maasai or for the ancient kings and patriarchs of Israel.

Presenting the modern nuclear family as The Traditional Family™ presents fundamentally little more than a particular cultural bias.

Such does not promote family, it undermines the concept of the family. It demeans those families which do not align with a particularly narrow definition.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

Only according to the societal norms of our culture. It's certainly not traditional for the Maasai or for the ancient kings and patriarchs of Israel.

Presenting the modern nuclear family as The Traditional Family™ presents fundamentally little more than a particular cultural bias.

Such does not promote family, it undermines the concept of the family. It demeans those families which do not align with a particularly narrow definition.

-CryptoLutheran

If we leave aside your heavy rhetoric the only actual argument you made is related to polygamy and polyandry. Yet a family with multiple fathers or multiple mothers is not non-traditional in the modern sense of the term. Indeed it is quite common for polygamous families to keep track of the nuclear families that constitute the polygamous family. Polygamy and polyandry presuppose the nuclear family, whereas modern redefinitions contradict it. Conflating the two is sloppy to say the least.

Thus it is factually incorrect to claim that the notion of a traditional family is purely relative, particularly in the age of same-sex unions and sperm banks.

 

[FireDragon76]

If we leave aside your heavy rhetoric the only actual argument you made is related to polygamy and polyandry. Yet a family with multiple fathers or multiple mothers is not non-traditional in the modern sense of the term. Indeed it is quite common for polygamous families to keep track of the nuclear families that constitute the polygamous family. Polygamy and polyandry presuppose the nuclear family, whereas modern redefinitions contradict it. Conflating the two is sloppy to say the least.

Thus it is factually incorrect to claim that the notion of a traditional family is purely relative, particularly in the age of same-sex unions and sperm banks.

Polygamous families aren't constituted by "nuclear families". Trying to equivocate the two is just treating words as fungible for the purpose of polemics.

 

[zippy2006]

Polygamous families aren't constituted by "nuclear families". Trying to equivocate the two is just treating words as fungible for the purpose of polemics.

A nuclear family is mother, father, and children. Every polygamous family includes at least one nuclear family. Or do you know of polygamous families that are not constituted of nuclear families?

 

[FireDragon76]

A nuclear family is mother, father, and children. Every polygamous family includes at least one nuclear family. Or do you know of polygamous families that are not constituted of nuclear families?

That's focusing purely on a mechanistic view, and ignoring the sociological dimensions of those family structures.

 

[zippy2006]

That's focusing purely on a mechanistic view, and ignoring the sociological dimensions of those family structures.

It's merely prescinding, not ignoring. You spoke of polemics. If you truly want to avoid them then you ought to try to understand the argument presented. As is you've merely latched onto a term and pressed forward a technicality.

When folks in the modern day defend the traditional family against things like same-sex parentage or intentionally single-parent households they are not talking about polygamy, and they understand that there is a vast difference between polygamy and modern redefinitions of the family.

 

[keith99]

Even more traditional was the multi-generational home & family, where grandparents were included, along with parents and their children.

Some still sort of fit that mold. I and my siblings were often cared for by our grandparents when we were young. My sister often is looking after her grandchild. It does not fit the older farm based mold completely, different houses and not super close to each other.

We sure did not fit the mold in a ridged manner. I on the rare occasions where I might have needed help with math it was mom, not dad, who would have helped me.

What I see as the big problem is times are changing and far too many either want to cling to every little detail of the past and others want to throw everything out. Far better to keep what works well and adapt.

And most important of all to not judge others because they are not fortunate enough to have 2 good parents. One good parent is usually far better that one good parent and one jerk or worse. It takes guts to decide to be that one good parent without help or backup and those guts deserve praise, not scorn.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's merely prescinding, not ignoring. You spoke of polemics. If you truly want to avoid them then you ought to try to understand the argument presented. As is you've merely latched onto a term and pressed forward a technicality.

When folks in the modern day defend the traditional family against things like same-sex parentage or intentionally single-parent households they are not talking about polygamy, and they understand that there is a vast difference between polygamy and modern redefinitions of the family.

The argument presented I understand, but I reject its logic. I see no evidence that enforcing that ideal on human beings leads to flourishing in our modern age.

 

[zippy2006]

The argument presented I understand, but I reject its logic. I see no evidence that enforcing that ideal on human beings leads to flourishing in our modern age.

But it's not an enforced ideal, it's a factual norm that is hundreds of thousands of years old. The enforced ideal would be the hubristic claim that human families are not based on biological pair bonding.

 

[Paidiske]

I would say that biological pair bonding is one aspect, but not the only aspect, and not always the most important aspect, of what which shapes human families.

 

[FireDragon76]

But it's not an enforced ideal, it's a factual norm that is hundreds of thousands of years old.

Not true. All evidence is that human societies have had a variety of kinship structures for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, during the paleolithic, there was likely more diversity than today.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would say that biological pair bonding is one aspect, but not the only aspect, and not always the most important aspect, of what which shapes human families.

Amen, sister.

There is so much more to family, than biology. Isn't that what the Gospel teaches us in the first chapters of John?

 

[mama2one]

.