God and sin

[Locutus]

No. Children SHOULD obey parents.

Children NEED to obey parents to stay safe, but this only applies when they are young. Once they reach a certain age, some time at or after the age of reason, they ought to be sufficiently sensible to not need automatic and unquestioning obedience.

Let me assume you're from a non-western culture.

 

[juvenissun]

Children NEED to obey parents to stay safe, but this only applies when they are young. Once they reach a certain age, some time at or after the age of reason, they ought to be sufficiently sensible to not need automatic and unquestioning obedience.

Let me assume you're from a non-western culture.

They can reason, they can negotiate, they can escape and avoid conflict, but they still SHOULD try to obey, no matter what. If they don't, that is their fault.

This is Biblical.

 

[Locutus]

They can reason, they can negotiate, they can escape and avoid conflict, but they still SHOULD try to obey, no matter what. If they don't, that is their fault.
This is Biblical.

I don't care what the bible says on the matter. Demanding obedience as some sort of parental "right", and worse, blaming the KID when you get it so wrong that they have no choice but to 'disobey', makes for some seriously unsound parenting.

I feel you must be a child yourself, to advocate for unquestioning obedience to bad parents. A foolish and positively medieval idea.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't care what the bible says on the matter. Demanding obedience as some sort of parental "right", and worse, blaming the KID when you get it so wrong that they have no choice but to 'disobey', makes for some seriously unsound parenting.

I feel you must be a child yourself, to advocate for unquestioning obedience to bad parents. A foolish and positively medieval idea.

You should care. But I don't think you alone can do anything to change it.
Look at kids today. They are rebellious since 8 or 9 under the indulgence of parents. Your thought may represent the majority of what parents think in US.

Go back 60 years (only), then you know I am right. The family relationship was much better at that time.

That is it. The children-parents parable should be ended here. Go back to the OP.

 

[Locutus]

You should care. But I don't think you alone can do anything to change it.
Look at kids today. They are rebellious since 8 or 9 under the indulgence of parents. Your thought may represent the majority of what parents think in US.

Go back 60 years (only), then you know I am right. The family relationship was much better at that time.

That is it. The children-parents parable should be ended here. Go back to the OP.

I have no idea what happens in America, I don't live there.

Meantime, you cannot be serious about parenting circa 1950s. Kids were raised to think women were second class citizens, and 'coloured' people ditto. Not to mention that it's the people who were raised with that kind of "obey regardless of the source" mentality who are responsible for any mess you see today.

You should thank the 1960s for giving birth to the generations who've had the brass to say "wait a minute ... we can do better". They are the ones who gave us permission to question authority - precisely because authority can be BAD. Obeying without question means repeating the mistakes of forefathers. Look at any culture which remains medieval, and you'll see unquestioning obedience.

If you want a better tomorrow for our kids, raise kids who want to do better, not merely 'the same'.

And I haven't even touched on the pridefulness of demanding your kids are exactly like you.

Finally, I REALLY don't give damn what the bible says. Primitives who would stone kids to death for disobedience are not recommended for parenting cues.

 

[quatona]

I will say it anyway.

Since you want to tell me what my position is and to speak on my behalf there isn´t much point in talking with you. You are just talking to yourself, then.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea what happens in America, I don't live there.

Meantime, you cannot be serious about parenting circa 1950s. Kids were raised to think women were second class citizens, and 'coloured' people ditto. Not to mention that it's the people who were raised with that kind of "obey regardless of the source" mentality who are responsible for any mess you see today.

You should thank the 1960s for giving birth to the generations who've had the brass to say "wait a minute ... we can do better". They are the ones who gave us permission to question authority - precisely because authority can be BAD. Obeying without question means repeating the mistakes of forefathers. Look at any culture which remains medieval, and you'll see unquestioning obedience.

If you want a better tomorrow for our kids, raise kids who want to do better, not merely 'the same'.

And I haven't even touched on the pridefulness of demanding your kids are exactly like you.

Finally, I REALLY don't give damn what the bible says. Primitives who would stone kids to death for disobedience are not recommended for parenting cues.

Everyone study the SAME Bible written thousands year ago, SO THAT the society could become better and better.
Do you think society today is really better than it was before? I really don't think so. I think it is much worse now.

 

[juvenissun]

Since you want to tell me what my position is and to speak on my behalf there isn´t much point in talking with you. You are just talking to yourself, then.

You have never really talked to me since and include that "no" reply.

 

[quatona]

You have never really talked to me since and include that "no" reply.

You asked a question, I answered it. That´s a classical form of communication.

 

[juvenissun]

You asked a question, I answered it. That´s a classical form of communication.

I also answered back to your answer.

 

[Locutus]

Everyone study the SAME Bible written thousands year ago, SO THAT the society could become better and better.
Do you think society today is really better than it was before? I really don't think so. I think it is much worse now.

You think people were better 2000 years ago? When we killed each other for the slightest insult, rape and slavery were tolerated, and women were worth half a man? If that's what you want there are still places where people live like that. Why don't you move to one of them?

Or do you prefer living in a place in which you benefit every single day from the fruit of those who didn't 'obey'? You know, all those kids who were encouraged to weigh things on merit instead of obediently repeating the mistakes of the past.

I don't believe you've thought this through for a picosecond.

 

[juvenissun]

You think people were better 2000 years ago? When we killed each other for the slightest insult, rape and slavery were tolerated, and women were worth half a man? If that's what you want there are still places where people live like that. Why don't you move to one of them?

Or do you prefer living in a place in which you benefit every single day from the fruit of those who didn't 'obey'? You know, all those kids who were encouraged to weigh things on merit instead of obediently repeating the mistakes of the past.

I don't believe you've thought this through for a picosecond.

Life 200 years ago is not worse than life today. They are just different. Technology does not improve the quality of life. Everything becomes worse due to the technology. As the technology progresses fast, it could only get even worse.

I guess you do not understand what I said.

 

[Locutus]

Life 200 years ago is not worse than life today. They are just different. Technology does not improve the quality of life. Everything becomes worse due to the technology. As the technology progresses fast, it could only get even worse.

I guess you do not understand what I said.

We were discussing people, not technology. And society IS people.

And I'll ask again, if you think society (aka, people) was better 200 years ago, why do you live in a modern society? There are quite a few places you could live where it's still 1816, yet here you are, talking to us via technology from the safety of a place no doubt free from war and civil unrest, with easily accessible nedical care, and a benevolent and equitable government which will care for you and your family should you fall on hard times.

In answer to your question, yes, I absolutely believe we are better today. Humanity is improving. Not without cost and ooccasional backward steps, but the trajectory is up.

 

[juvenissun]

We were discussing people, not technology. And society IS people.

And I'll ask again, if you think society (aka, people) was better 200 years ago, why do you live in a modern society? There are quite a few places you could live where it's still 1816, yet here you are, talking to us via technology from the safety of a place no doubt free from war and civil unrest, with easily accessible nedical care, and a benevolent and equitable government which will care for you and your family should you fall on hard times.

In answer to your question, yes, I absolutely believe we are better today. Humanity is improving. Not without cost and ooccasional backward steps, but the trajectory is up.

I sincerely wish you were right. But I don't think so.
If I could live 200 years or earlier back. I won't hesitate to go back there. The quality of life is much better then.

 

[Locutus]

I sincerely wish you were right. But I don't think so.
If I could live 200 years or earlier back. I won't hesitate to go back there. The quality of life is much better then.

I think you're being very dishonest. You SAY life was better200 years ago, yet you sit there typing messages on a computer, taking the antibiotics your doctor prescribes for you, and reaping the benefits of a decent education and reasonable levels of equality for all colours and genders. You can expect to live beyond 35, and slavery is non-existent. If you were genuine, you would live in a place where you have no access to these things, yet you don't. Your actions give the lie to your words. Life was very grim 200 years ago, for all but a tiny proportion of nobility - and even they didn't have antibiotics, and died young.

While the industrial revolution started breaking the chains (of servitude to medieval ways), in some ways we stayed mentally medieval until the 1960s. Women did dispense with dresses and obtained the vote in the 20thC, but it wasn't until a few disobedient kids had enough passion for goodness to speak out that we started to wake up. Yes there was a small cost to this awakening (drug culture), but the fruit of it exceeds that small price by a mile. Kids looked at the model they'd been obliged to imitate and said 'we can do better'. They asked why America was in a pointless war, and why their black friends were treated as less than human. They asked why women were second class citizens, and why the establishment was never questioned.

YOU are the beneficiary of 1960s rebellion, and you love it.

 

[juvenissun]

I think you're being very dishonest. You SAY life was better200 years ago, yet you sit there typing messages on a computer, taking the antibiotics your doctor prescribes for you, and reaping the benefits of a decent education and reasonable levels of equality for all colours and genders. You can expect to live beyond 35, and slavery is non-existent. If you were genuine, you would live in a place where you have no access to these things, yet you don't. Your actions give the lie to your words. Life was very grim 200 years ago, for all but a tiny proportion of nobility - and even they didn't have antibiotics, and died young.

While the industrial revolution started breaking the chains (of servitude to medieval ways), in some ways we stayed mentally medieval until the 1960s. Women did dispense with dresses and obtained the vote in the 20thC, but it wasn't until a few disobedient kids had enough passion for goodness to speak out that we started to wake up. Yes there was a small cost to this awakening (drug culture), but the fruit of it exceeds that small price by a mile. Kids looked at the model they'd been obliged to imitate and said 'we can do better'. They asked why America was in a pointless war, and why their black friends were treated as less than human. They asked why women were second class citizens, and why the establishment was never questioned.

YOU are the beneficiary of 1960s rebellion, and you love it.

Your challenge is not practical and not true. I would only say if the current society is collapsed back to what it was like 200 years ago, I would not feel a bit sad about it. On the contrary, I would be very glad to see it. I think technology brings us something, but also take something else away. In comparison, I prefer to keep the old ones (values).

 

[Neochristian]

I never understood that: if we are all sinners and always sinners, what was the point of Christ's crucifixion? Wasn't it to pay for our sin? And aren't we forgiven our sin? If we are without sin, then we are not sinners. Paul says we are saved from the law of sin.