It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When Did Religion Start?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Yes, I know. I think you're having a 'down' cycle right now. ..... though I may be mistaken. I just made a post that highlighted yours from earlier - about what NDEs seem to suggest.

ttyl




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


No, not having a down cycle...unless I find out something bad happened that will derail the remainder of my evening. But so far, no news. A good sign.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Okay, then. Just wondered....your mood shifted. (Did you notice that?) When did religion start? When people realized they couldn't figure out what the hell was going on here !!!!

Anyway. Good evening.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


My temperament has chinks in it. A stray arrow will occasionally find a nerve and earn a quick lash in return.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



The problem is there is a concept for some Christians that others call "greasy grace". It means that no matter what you do, God shows you grace. Even if you killed someone, God shows grace.

But these are man made traditions that originated with St. Augustine and then John Calvin. Ugh

BUT ONLY if they were 'predestined' and therefore, would willingly be drawn to Christ. Those not of 'the elect' were doomed, no matter what.

Here you're talking about the TULIP thing...right?

Frightening.


Yes, TULIP.

It's beginning to be rejected by more Christians. I never understood it myself, but it was presented to me the first time when someone told me that adultery was not a sin if they were already forgiven. These were Christian people who said this.

SMH.

This moral relativity has influenced people in all religions. That's why I think some standard of morality should apply to all, but not in a subjugating manner, just that it is to protect the innocent from harmful people.

People are always told not to, but never told why not to. And the why not to is because people get hurt by actions of others. Thou shalt not kill has turned into thou shalt not kill someone like yourself.

Adultery kills trust, isn't that enough to think it is wrong?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Whenever I walk into a church while service is going, I am persistently struck by the dogmatic, archaic, cultish antiquity of what is being said. I could easily imagine a Halloween movie using their words as a chant for some obscure backwoods initiation. In fact, the distinctly Orwellian taste of it just makes me want to stand up and scream.

"Fear is love. Faith is knowledge. Oppression is security. You must fear those whom you love, faith will tell you everything you need to know, and you are only safe as long as you are in chains."
IS WHAT THEY SAY IN CHURCHES. I hear ya. (quotes and emphasis mine).


The systematic denigration of the human species, even of animalism for that matter. Slowly and steadily convincing ourselves that to be of this world is a bad thing, and so we must spend our lives staring longingly at the sky, wishing not only that we were not human and not here, but wishing for something that is entirely unrealistic and much much worse than what we are right now.

THIS. ^



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


In addition to what you said: for those unfamiliar with TULIP, they are the five critical points of Calvinism, the five keys of that philosophy.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)


Adultery kills trust, isn't that enough to think it is wrong?


I rely on empathy to discern between right and wrong. It usually works.
edit on 5-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Adultery kills trust, isn't that enough to think it is wrong?

It is, in a society that reveres 'monogamy'. So yeah, in the context of the USA, it DOES, definitely, kill trust. And yet, there are Americans who are polyamory, and also polygamous....they have 'open relationships', wherein either partner is free to have other 'lovers', or even other 'spouses'.....

some of them include bisexual behavior; others not. "Swingers" is the old term for those who 'partner-swapped' for kicks and grins.

So, we must remember that CULTURE influences 'morality' - and that in other cultures, the tenets established in our culture don't necessarily apply.


edit on 11/5/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


In your humble opinion, do you feel that a culture based on less restrictive sexual mores are more beneficial for a society or have we lost individualism in morality?

As you point out, there are many people who hold polyamorous views, and maintain they are happy. But is that culture or individual? And if moral relativity is to the individual first, then is it wrong to have a moral guideline that restricts less sexual morality?

If people are going to do it anyway, no matter who set and regulates the rules, then does becoming a cultural norm make something better? A cultural norm is a collective more...one that the culture embraces and practices as part of the norms. If adultery is simply just a monogamous restriction set by the rule makers, does it make it less than better?

If you look at monogamy and polygamy, which do you think would benefit any society? Polygamy exists in Islamic countries, and the rule makers set the rules that men may have four wives and it doesn't matter the age, but does it benefit young girls forced into marriage? Polygamy is a cultural norm in Islam, set by the rule makers. It is upheld and endorsed by the rule makers.

Did you know that in Islam, they have a type of marriage, they call it, where a man can contract a woman for marriage for one hour, pay her and then leave her? We call that prostitution, they call it marriage. And many women are being taken advantage of, again by a cultural norm but endorsed by rule makers.

I am asking for your opinion because here in the United States, we have a duality in morality. Is something beneficial, even if it is a cultural norm?
edit on 11/5/2013 by WarminIndy because: I meant for paragraphs, ATS is glitchy tonight.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Is something beneficial, even if it is a cultural norm?

No, but that is too broad a brush you're painting with. Cultural "norms" such as women driving, or happy hours, or wearing one's hair covered or not, have nothing to do with "morality" -

when you venture into the nature of sexuality, however, cultural norms are ALWAYS imposed. We are sexual creatures. We can NOT "force" young people to deny their sexuality, we can only SHAME them, or SCARE them, into 'abstaining'. Hormones will be hormones. The sexual repression in the USA is ridiculous. Sex is not "dirty." It's normal, natural, and healthy. (THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT Miley Cyrus or Beyonce or other such 'shows of sexiness' are 'healthy' for a culture. Not at all.)

I recently read an article (can't recall where at the moment - still having my first cuppa) which discussed whether "monogamy" is a normal, biological thing. It said, no, for humans, it's not. SOME species mate for life, just naturally. I doubt that geese think much about "morals" - yet they mate for life.

PEOPLE, on the other hand, "mate". IF they stay 'mated for life', it is a matter of will-power, because we ALL become attracted to others, whether we are married or not has no bearing on who will 'spark' our pheromones, hormones, and fancy. It only "keeps us in line with" the cultural 'expectation' (I won't call it a norm anymore - most relationships are transient). A married person who focuses ONLY on their chosen partner does so due to either infatuation, determination, having children, or the pressure of "cultural norms". Those 'norms' are NOT based on actual BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES or human nature.

Better the "norm" is discussing sex openly, recognizing it as a natural human process, and rationally dealing with it (via education, etc.) - not PUSHING it on others, and not FORCING others to pretend they aren't sexual creatures. Just letting it be, no 'stage performances' are required or appropriate.
edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


Ugh, I'm not sure I answered your question, or even articulated my answer, satisfactorily. Need more caffeine. Which is NOT a 'sin', no matter what the Mormons say, or any other "culture" about humans using substances.
edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


As this is a question of when religion began, and so cultural norms and mores found within faith systems, there seems to be a broad sweeping of moral relativism. We are hinting about a sexual dialogue within this country, but not addressing that same moral relativism across history.

It seems the most criticism against Christianity arises from that sexual dialogue. But sexual dialogue as cultural norms is nothing new, and you have to remember that Christianity was developed during the Roman Empire and the cultural norm of the Romans was highly sexualized, as well as the Greeks. And yet both the Roman and Greek faith systems were neither Christian, nor embraced Christian morality until later.

But as they used to say "When in Rome do as the Romans do". What did the Romans do in their faith system? Did the Christians have a right to follow a different morality within the prevailing cultural norm of sexual hedonism? People say two things "God loves me no matter what I do" and "Why does God say this is wrong?" So does a cultural norm replace morality or does it enforce morality?

In Rome and Greece, the gods said it was ok. But I wonder, did Ganymede find it moral to be caught and raped?
In Plato's Eurythphro Dilemma, he does ask

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)
When culture becomes god, then is something good because the culture says it is, or is it good and that's why culture loves it?

Removing historical reference changes perspective for any culture. So we have to break this down into fundamental elements, the first being morality defined. To which previous religion should we follow? And if so, would we then not be holding to their cultural norms as well?

There is nothing new in the sexuality debate, but sexuality is defined within a culture. Should we go back to Zeus and Ganymede? Should we go back to Hades and Persephone? Zeus and Ganymede was the justification for pederasty, a cultural norm in Greece.

We could spend years debating whether or not morality defined by one is better or worse than another, but in the end, we have to live with the effects of cultural norms and defining morality by culture as though culture is god. And yes, the Islamic thought is that women are morally correct for wearing the burqua.




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



It seems the most criticism against Christianity arises from that sexual dialogue

Not from me. I think that the sexual repression of modern Christian organizations is ridiculous, yes. "Expectations" are disappointed - when we HAVE EXPECTATIONS.

I don't believe Jesus ever said that women were evil, or the 'fall of mankind', but because his teachings were "tacked on" to the Jewish OT, it has been made out to look like he DID....and that is a lie.

My main criticism of "Christianity" lies NOT in what Jesus himself taught -- I actually agree with what he taught, and his message of morals, and of oneness with the Source (he calls father). I agree also that we can ALL do what he could do, and more, ONCE WE NURTURE AND RECOGNIZE that power within ourselves.

What I object to is saying that "He was God in the flesh, but WE are all sinners worthy of hell." THAT is my main beef with it. I don't believe Jesus was any more "God" than all of us are - but he certainly had FAR more understanding of the mystical truths than the Jews (or the Romans) did.

The fact that he was killed shows the ignorance of MOST humans - because what he said was 'true', but what others said ABOUT HIM was simply not. I object to Christianity's insistence that we are all doomed but for the grace of God. That's just stupid. We are ALL precious, connected, and represent an aspect of "God" - but so is the sun, the planet, all animals, plants, elements, etc. It is ALL "GOD" -

another thing I despise about modern Christianity is the thinking that animals are crude, stupid beasts, and that "man" has "dominion" as in 'the final say-so' over our planet and co-inhabitants. Wrong. We are "stewards", in a wholly unique way, equipped to either support and work WITH nature, or to fight and subjugate it. Again....stupid.

I was raised in the Episcopal church - they allow women to be vicars, deacons, etc. They allow marriage. They allow divorce. They allow homosexuality. Does that make them NON CHRISTIANS? NO. It makes them tolerant of humankind's propensities. They do NOT teach that we are all bound for hell (the creeds were what tripped me up - I was too young to get the symbolism as a mature, spiritually experienced adult would do). My objection is TO TEACHING CHILDREN THEY ARE WORTHLESS, bad, always failures, and worthy of going to hell.

It's the arrogance, superiority, and oppression that I object to.
edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by wildtimes
 

the cultural norm of the Romans was highly sexualized, as well as the Greeks. And yet both the Roman and Greek faith systems were neither Christian, nor embraced Christian morality until later.

This isn't entirely true.

There seems to be this prevailing idea that the Romans were inherently immoral, but moral reform actually happened long before Christianity started to take hold under Emperor Augustus aka Octavian. Augustus ruled between 27BC and 14AD, long before Christianity ever took hold.

Rome went through a number of incarnations over several centuries and indeed, at one stage, had state sponsored brothels but this wasn't a constant. Rome, for the most part, was also fairly tolerant of other belief systems although there was hostility towards monotheism; this was in no small part due to monotheism's assertion that there was only one true religion.

Over the years Romans accomplished highly moral acts, including punishing their own soldiers who had begun plundering and raping within occupied enemy cities. Further to this, the occupied city sent out an envoy to request this punishment. From this we can ascertain that Romans weren't only capable of high morality, but it was expected and known about them. Characters like Mark Anthony were also demonized over their sexual adventures.

There were many examples of 'Christian-like' Roman morality prior to Christian Rome which is very telling.


Did the Christians have a right to follow a different morality within the prevailing cultural norm of sexual hedonism?

I don't think it was morality causing the problem.


In Rome and Greece, the gods said it was ok. But I wonder, did Ganymede find it moral to be caught and raped?

Socrates is a good point of reference to acknowledge that the behavior of the Gods was not necessarily the encouraged behavior of Roman people as one of Socrates arguments was that the Gods were evil. Rome also put down numbers of sexually permissive cults in the name of order and morality, and Augustus attempted aggressive sexual reforms which his own daughter rebelled against.

The more morality and religion are discussed in the past the more I believe that not much has changed. Replace Socrates with Christopher Hitchens and Augustus with an American politician with a prostitute for a daughter and it really isn't all that different. The names change, no one follows the books to the letter, and the arguments are always the same.

Religion stands in a unique place in that it is seen as a necessary method of transferring moral messages and providing moral grounding which is one of the many reasons it won't go anywhere in the near future. Augustus's moral reform actually created a state religion oddly enough possibly as a means to an end.

If you tell people to be nice to each (especially in ancient times) no one cared, but if you have a nice bag to put it in such as a state religion or tradition it's much more likely to carry on as a message.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I visited an Episcopal church once. I don't know people who are or who have been, aside from talking with you on ATS, and I wouldn't have known either before you told me. But as I really don't know much about the Episcopal faith, I will let you share from out of that experience.

It's not only a problem within religion that tells children they are worthless, that also occurs outside of religion. I don't agree with the other extreme either, like the little girls dressed like grown women and hypersexualizing them for pageant shows. Little girls should be little girls, and not grown women. But then again, little boys are hypermasculinized also (that word is not recognized by spell check) through war games. But since little boys play war games anyway, is that cultural influence? I don't know, but I have five brothers who all went into the military, but they played rough games as children.

I am not a parent, so I don't know how to think on that one. But little boys are presented with violence beyond normal playtime. How many times have you heard little boys say they like a particular wrestler or MMX fighter and then imitate that fighter? I might be treading on sacred waters here for fathers of little boys...sooooo, let them defend their position.

I think all little children have great potential of greatness and have never believed little children were worthless or even determined for hell. But at the same time, aren't some punishments from some parents deemed more abusive, when there does not seem to be abuse? For instance, I heard on the morning news one time that some parents regard buying used clothing for their children to be child abuse. I would think a child with no warm clothing is more abusive rather than where they got the clothing.

But even that is being more defined within our culture and not arising from religion. And we do live in a bully culture, where do children get their ideas from to bully other children? The bully mentality extends beyond religion. What child goes around saying "I bully you in the name of religion"? Is it not as much indoctrination of children in the bully mentality?

It is as much indoctrination into hypersexualization and hypermasculinazation, children are taught through their parents' permissiveness of those cultural trends, without regard to religion. I don't have children, but I live in world where children are present and will become society tomorrow.

Remember the crying boy about Britney Spears? "All you need to leave her alone"....which Britney Spears was he referring to? Was he appealing to the former church girl, or the popular one he knew? He was defending the pop culture image. And yet Britney Spears made her image from exploitation, she was exploited as a young person, and I do not believe for a minute that only teenagers bought her albums or watched her videos.

Graham Green once remarked about Shirley Temple that her image was designed for pedophilia. He was right in that sense, because Shirley Temple became a star by the amount on money spent by grown men.

Shirley Temple, Graham Green and Child Sexualization

This occurred outside of religion, and when morality was appealed to, it remained in the public opinion arena. Was Shirley Temple presented as a sexual object when she was very young? Absolutely she was, without a doubt. The same goes for Brook Shields and others. In the early days of the film industry, they adopted within the industry the Hays Code, which is why we have the ratings systems today. But as the entertainment industry pushes past their own code, society embraces the less restriction, because it appeals to culture. This is outside of religion.

Neither the church or the government imposed the Hays Code, it was self-instituted and self-regulated within the industry itself. But then, we hear people say "Well, in Europe...." when it comes to film. And why do you suppose the porn industry is so big now, making so much money, that it is embraced by the mainstream filmmakers? Because porn is accepted as a cultural norm.

We have gone back to the earliest days of Hollywood before the Hays Code. Betty Boop was a porn cartoon, that had to be dressed up to appeal to a broader audience, and the broader audience loves Betty Boop. Not me though, I like Marvin the Martian. But then again, even the Bugs Bunny cartoons also present messages to children. What child doesn't laugh when Bugs Bunny becomes a transvestite and flirts with Elmer Fudd? And this is subtle indoctrination.

If we really opened our eyes, we will see that indoctrination of children is coming from every facet of our culture. But morality defined by a religion suddenly becomes wrong when a church makes the statement that children are innocent and should be protected?

I once belonged to a playwright forum, as a writer of screenplays. I worked with theater professionals. One of the most astounding statements from them was that they did have an agenda to change morality in culture by removing religion. They said that their purpose was to shock the audience to the point of desensitizing them to make them abandon religious beliefs. We are indeed in a culture war. And indoctrination of children is from all sides.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Pinke, do you know that Nero married a man and that wouldn't you say it could be immoral to throw Christians to lions?

Rome wasn't exactly a nice place to be if you were not a Roman citizen. But as they were debating within themselves their own morality, why didn't the Romans not object to throwing Christians to lions?

Socrates was Greek and did ask the question if people did what the gods did, or was what the gods did to be taken as a moral lesson.

The Dionysus cult remained popular as well as the Artemis cult in Turkey well after the Christian churches were founded there.

Did you know that in Pergamos was the temple of Zeus that Adolph Hitler had torn down and rebuilt in Berlin and that platform we see him on, that is such a well-known image is that rebuilt temple?



edit on 11/6/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



But morality defined by a religion suddenly becomes wrong when a church makes the statement that children are innocent and should be protected?

Morality is ALL ABOUT children being innocent and protecting them.

I'm not sure where you got that from. I think you know that I am OPPOSED to religions that teach children they will go to hell, just because they are born human, and have to "redeem" themselves somehow. It's crap.

Yes, I also hate the beauty-queening of toddlers and preschoolers. I've raised one girl, and one boy. I never forbade either from exploring the 'other gender's' interests. Boys tend to be aggressive, violent, destructive. Girls more nurturing, teaching, organizing, etc.

It seems to be hardwired. If EVERY church made the statement that children are innocent and should be protected, that would be AWESOME!!

(btw, I have two completed and once-agented screenplays awaiting a producer - you got any connections?
)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


LOL, networking, networking....

I am always interested in helping people network. So you wrote screenplays, that's really awesome. My producer friend is now working for the BBC. He can't currently do anything.

I think the best way is through independent films, Steven Spielberg has become alarmed and did write an article about the impending implosion of the film industry

Independent films are changing Hollywood, so students should be aware of that.

I believe in the innocence and protection of children. Even Jesus was like that, to the point He even said "If you harm any of these little ones, it's better if a millstone hung around your neck and you thrown into the sea", but I have heard some Christians say that applies to His disciples. But His disciples weren't exactly little.

I take on a completely different view regarding children, I don't think children are worthless or sinful, and most disciplines against children in the Bible (which people don't read in context) is against adult ones. Spare the rod and spoil the child doesn't mean to beat them down, because the rest of the Bible actually places children in a very supportive and to be nurtured position.

The Bible calls children a gift and a blessing. But people see that one verse and think it is about young children. No, it is about grown children. And spare the rod, does that mean a stick, or does it mean discipline? I think it means discipline. Some parents are over indulgent, and that doesn't help much either.

I don't have children so I can't say what is a good discipline, but discipline usually leads to grown children being able to have discipline within themselves. I looked it up, here is discipline...


1dis·ci·pline noun \ˈdi-sə-plən\
1: control that is gained by requiring that rules or orders be obeyed and punishing bad behavior
2: a way of behaving that shows a willingness to obey rules or orders
3: behavior that is judged by how well it follows a set of rules or orders

Full Definition of DISCIPLINE
1 : punishment
2 obsolete : instruction
3 : a field of study
4 : training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character
5 a : control gained by enforcing obedience or order
b : orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior
c : self-control
6 : a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity


That can be taken in 6 different ways.

The arguments will go on 6 different ways....but I like number 4. I think also the Bible supports number 4, because it says to "train children in the way they should go and when they are old, they will not leave it". I don't think it's wrong to give children a work ethic by giving them chores, but there are those parents who think any discipline is overboard.

I don't know from this perspective because I really don't understand what it means to be a parent as you said on another thread. But I was a child once and can remember that.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Spare the rod and spoil the child doesn't mean to beat them down, because the rest of the Bible actually places children in a very supportive and to be nurtured position.


Yes, I think lots of people think it means "You will spoil the child if you don't beat him." I think it means, "DON'T use a rod on a child" and by "spoil" they mean "indulge"....

your definitions of "discipline" as extexted are interesting. My experience as a parent and counselor is that discipline is

c : self-control
.

It is something a child learns to do by being corrected - they internalize that correction (which DOES NOT MEAN HAVING THE CRAP BEATEN OUT OF THEM - it means TREATING THEM WITH LOVE, while verbally chastising any BEHAVIOR that is likely to be detrimental to themselves and society.)

None of the "imposed rules" stuff. No. Teaching a child to be self-aware of consequences and actions, to learn from their mistakes, while loving them unconditionally and giving time and opportunities to amend their counterproductive behaviors and thusly show improvement - as well as MODELLING appropriate behavior - is true discipline. The other 'definitions' are simply "forced compliance" or "punishment.")


edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Which is why I think most young parents today don't have a grasp on self-discipline themselves.

Look at a current popular show "Jackass", how many young kids attempt to imitate those stunts? And there isn't much internalization about consequences.

I remember a time in this country when teenage girls were shunned if they got pregnant and forced to marry someone who didn't love them or intend to take care of them. I don't agree with that at all, no girl should be forced to marry, because marriage should be regarded as more than just a way to save respectability. There had been little compulsion toward the young men about responsibility and they were encouraged to "sow their wild oats".

My maternal grandmother was from Kentucky, and many of my cousins from there were married young and had children young. I grew up in Ohio apart from that culture and never made the connection with them at all, we were from two different worlds. Some of their marriages failed and some thrived, but it was really because of the level of parental support.

One of my cousins was pregnant at 14 and then again at 17, but married right before her graduation from high school. This cousin also grew up in Ohio. To this day they are happily married, but they had to grow up together and their parents helped them and didn't force them to marry. Another cousin in Kentucky was married at 14 and didn't get pregnant until she was 18, but their marriage failed because there was lack of parental guidance. I have many cousins pregnant young and married young, and it seems only the ones who had positive guidance seem to make it.

Teenage girls have been getting pregnant since there were teenage girls. That's nothing new. But I can see from the huge disconnect between us, that my cousins didn't have opportunity beyond the mountains. But it's the same thing in urban settings, when children are not presented with something beyond their little world, it does limit opportunity in their view, opportunity is there, they just never saw it presented.

We can't internalize consequences unless we know there are, and that can only come from people who have been there and done that.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



We can't internalize consequences unless we know there are, and that can only come from people who have been there and done that.

Hmmm. No, I think I disagree with that. Certainly we can learn ABOUT consequences from others, but the story, told in hindsight; or the witnessing of consequences that happen to others; is effective only to a certain degree.

If a child SEES someone stick their hand in the fire and then have a burned hand, that is witnessing the consequence. It doesn't really 'compare' to having HAD THE BURNED HAND, but yes, it does teach the consequence without having to experience the pain.

BUT - if a child is allowed (and encouraged) to EXPERIENCE the consequences, without being 'rescued' (Mom, I forgot to do my homework!) they will learn it and INTERNALIZE it.

Discipline is about self-control at ALL levels. Whether it's not eating or drinking too much, doing homework, practicing the piano or gymnastics to get better at it, or whatever - consequences are the teachers, and DISCIPLINE is the outcome of having internalized those consequences.

We can discover for ourselves that there are consequences (often unexpected in the throes of frivolous or imprudent action-taking) and learn from that. Or, someone can "tell us" about what happened to them in a similar situation - but the former is the best teacher, in my humble opinion.

Rule-following is not TRULY discipline and self-control. It's merely rule-following.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join