Clearly, they did something that made God unhappy. That's why he took their child away. Or was the infant being disrespectful?
While I would agree there is an element of that in religion, I would say there is an element of that in everything we do consciously; and that religion, if anything, is set apart from other human activities by the marginalisation of this aspect. For Christianity, even the first story about Kain and Abel tells us that it is wrong to expect similar treatment from God for actions that are similar by extent. Plus, of course, Job. I am sure that thinking does exist in religion, but I would still say it is less typical for religion than for other areas of life. I haven't heard anyone describe a secular judge's rulings as "ineffable", except as sarcastic criticism. Isn't that just the general definition of "goal"? I'm not quite sure I see how this point works yet. On the one hand, it sounds a lot like the typical argument for atheist or at least non-spiritual ethics ("Christians try to do the right thing out of fear of hell, atheists because they want to do the right thing"; or more famously: "If nothing you do matters, then all that matters is what you do.") But there's also a danger of a conceptual loop here: If you want to get away from sin because you want to be a good person, apparently being a good person is something good. In that case, you want to get away from sin because of some other good; unless getting away from sin and being a better person is in fact the same thing, as then it is the same good -- in which case we haven't yet answered the question why you'd want it. But either way, the more interesting question for me is this: It sounds as if you, personally, are interested in sin simply because you want to be a better person, at least as one of several reasons. If so, and if you believe that is not typically part of religion, then from what other source are you drawing that interest?
Bad things happen to good people. Job lost all his children and their families, and all his wealth on the same day. He then lost his health. He still worshiped God and God never explained to Job (that we know of) why he had suffered so. Job still never turned against God.
It's interesting that so many here think of sin as a rather universal cultural concept. It does not seem to be that way to me; I think what we call sin is very much a Judeo-Christian (and more recently, Muslim) idea. In koine Greek, for instance, you can pretty much trace how hamartia, which means a small fault or error, changes its meaning to accommodate this religious concept; suggesting that there was no such concept in Hellenistic culture before Judaism spread as Christianity.
Precisely. It's by far not the only way to read the book of Job, but it's definitely a reading that is out there. Which is why I can't see that an expectation of fair treatment for rule-abiding actions is a general feature of Christianity, much less all religions.
Why do you expect "fairness"? To me "fairness" is strictly a human concept that is based on a human beings limited perceptions and understanding.
Yes, I agree. I'm just saying this is why I don't see that Async's first point applies to religion more than to other human codes; if anything, it applies less to religion than to many others, and there is probably none to which it doesn't apply at all.
I've got a great idea: how about parents, the people who choose to have children, honor their children. The notion that children owe their parents something merely for bringing them into this world is ludicrous and immoral. Children are people, not property. Children owe parents respect for the good faith effort they put into raising them to be intelligent self-sufficient adults. Children owe parents nothing for birthing them or for trying to turn them into good little drones. All respect is either earned or false.
I find this extremely interesting. You are basically arguing that those things that religion (or anyone else) should call "sin" (or whatever other term you like) are not arbitrary things, but only things that really are harmful behavior. IOW, the formula (if you use religious terminology) should not be "This is sin, because God says so," but: "God says so, because it really is sin." And that is a philosophy I fully agree with. I refuse the concept of arbitrary morality, even when it is rooted in "God says so." As for the last sentence, it shows why religion, politics, and any other structure that gives people the right to tell others what to do always turns sour. It is not actually that "power corrupts" but that power enables corruption to do harm. But the corruption is already there. Which is why I favor libertarianism, even though in my heart I am more of a liberal. But giving government the power to "make things right" always leads to abuse. It is also why I favor libertarianism where spirituality is concerned: I don't like any religion that can tell the faithful what they must do and must not do. I prefers Augustine's "Love, and do as you will."
I've never bought into the idea of "earning respect". It strikes me as being presumptive. Someone imposing a burden upon others to "live up to their standards" in order to obtain something which should be freely given. And children are "people" but they are people in a special category. They existence under the control, protection, and authority of adults.
See also, most people's citizenship. Imposing (ideally reciprocated) obligations aids social cohesion. Provide alternative support structures (legal, social, economic etc) and these can be reconsidered. Also, young children can't be reasoned with, 'because I say so' is (probably?) a fundemental part of child rearing. It's easier to teach children a big scary man in the sky will make them suffer for eternity if they don't each they vegetables, than it is to explain to a child they lack the requisite ego development, impulse control and rationalisation capabilities to function as an fully fully fledged member of society.
The more I study religion in general, the more I find it to be corrupt and self-serving. I actually like what James has to say about it: "Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:26-27). In particular, I see more and more indications that most Christianity is not very different from any other religion, except in the ways that one religion always differs from another (the particular requirements, the precise nature of the benefits one expects, and so on). Christian teaching, Christian writings, Christian songs, Christian sermons are filled with ways to attain victory, prosperity, well-being, health, and of course eternal bliss in paradise, but have very little to say about hearts that are truly filled with caring about others (except insofar as there is something to gain from them in return). I also find it interesting that you refer to the story of Cain and Abel (even though I didn't quote that part of your post). Cain is an enlightening figure where religion is concerned. He is not merely a murderer, he is an unrepentant murderer -- he shows no sorrow whatsoever at having killed his brother. Yet he is a religious man. The story (whether you accept it as true or not) well illustrates how people look at religion: He did what he thought he had to do, and expected to receive something from God in return. He did not seem to be at all bothered by sin, but he sure was bothered when he found out what was going to happen to him because of it. And he shows no interest in becoming a better person, but only in God helping him with his problems. It shows that even thoroughly evil people can be sincerely religious, and also shows what kind of religion they want. All three of the aspects of religion I mentioned in the OP are there.
Hence "children owe parents respect for the good faith effort they put into raising them to be intelligent self-sufficient adults." Parents do not meet their obligations to their children merely by existing, nor even merely by keeping their children alive. The first obligation rests on those who would bring another into this world, and it's a pretty heavy duty obligation. Children are, in general, a whole hell of a lot smarter than people give them credit for. The overwhelming majority of the time "because I said so" is the lazy way out, an excuse for parents to impose discipline without even trying to teach their children or, sadly frequently, without even understanding why they're bothering to impose discipline in the first place. "Because I said so" is an answer to "why do we have to go to church;" it's not an answer to "why can't I eat a bag of candy," a question where any child capable of asking the question is capable of understanding a real answer. People treat children like idiots because that's how they were treated as children and that's how they're expected to treat children. Most children, however, are not idiots. Children are curious and learn rapidly and are, if anything, smarter than adults because they haven't yet been socialized in how to be stupid. If Dayton hadn't been treated like an idiot as a child he never could have grown into being Dayton. If "because I say so" is anything more than a very occasional part of your child rearing then you're doing it wrong.
I have. In my observation, lazy, ignorant teachers blame their lack of skill and engagement on their students. If you believe the majority of your students are idiots, the failure is yours.
Which brings us back to the eternal question of why somebody who views kids with such obvious contempt would be a teacher in the first place, but...
Well, what does that tell you? It's like listening to a beaten wife that keeps going back for more. But instead of "get out of there! Call the cops!", I'm saying throw out C.S. Lewis, and read some David Hume.
People choose their careers for many reasons and not necessarily the obvious ones. Do people that join the military do so because they are hell bent on killing people (unlikely). Do people who become doctors do so because they wish to spend their entire professional lives around the sick and dying (also unlikely). Do medical examiner's, coroner's, and morticians have a passion for dead bodies (some creepy ones perhaps but I doubt near all). Faceman: Not relevant.
Observation - as a student, teacher, parent, and grandparent - a skill your troll persona lacks entirely. Obvious only to you. Anyone else would come to entirely different conclusions. Thus we conclude that the only reason you took a teaching job is because you were bored with WalMart and wanted summers off. And the only thing this has to do with the original topic is that it once again indicates that you're guilty of violating the First Commandment.
You're accusing me of being a troll Garamet? Based on what? Why is it so hard to believe that someone holds the views that I do?
This is another thread that’s Not About Dayton, your efforts to the contrary notwithstanding. Topic: How religion works. And, Go.
Do you honestly think these parents deserve respect, and to be treated well? Father raped daughter for twelve years. Father raped daughters. Father raped his five daughters. Mother sells daughters as prostitutes. Mother Gets 54 Years For Letting Husband Have ‘Daddy-Daughter Sex’ With Their 4-Year-Old From Birth. Teen says parents locked him up for years. Mom burns daughter's hands for using phone. If you really believe that these parents still deserve respect, then you really have some serious delusions. No one with any sense of intelligence or morality would even consider that the children of these parents owe their parents anything other than contempt and hatred. The lesson learned from that story, God can be an asshole. He did all that to basically say "I can fuck with this guy all I want, and he won't do jack shit about it. Now watch this."
