Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Anomalocaris

The Origins of Religion

1,067 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

MC is just saying that some posters don't change their spots. And, this is a fair assessment, it has nothing to do with devils or demons just years of the same posting style.

 

Actually i think he was talking about the OTHER devil :)  Not everything is about me, you realise?  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dhurfjooydig
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Well the theory behind it IS wrong because it is based on false premises (both about human cognition and its effect on the evolution of human spiritual and religious thoughts, and on re interpreting archaeological evidences not with an open mind but with a cognitive bias.)

For the past 200 years Western archaeology has been interpreting evidence through a very modern (largely unconscious) 'religious' lens that's based on several false premises which have contributed to the construction of a cognitive bias. This institutionalized and enforced closed mind has contaminated the entire field.  

In the field of archaeology, these false premises and the resulting cognitive bias have obstructed research, inhibited progress, and distorted an understanding / interpretation of evidence. This is also the case in the fields of history, anthropology, and mythography / folkloristics. While much of this contamination and distortion is very subtle (with far reaching implications), let me give you just one very blatant example:

From the early 1800s through the 1960s, whenever archaeologists dug up artifacts that depicted homoerotic representations, it was the standard in the field to either destroy them on the spot (an incalculable loss) or surreptitiously sell them to private collectors who kept them hidden. The conditioned 'religious' lens caused archaeologists to see these artifacts as, at best, inconvenient anomalies that if acknowledged would require a critical examination of any number of institutionalized beliefs in academia and society. Starting in the late 60s, this practice gradually stopped, and for the next 40 years when these artifacts were discovered, they ended up in the sub-basements of museums ... unstudied and not displayed publicly. Only in the last decade or so have increasing numbers of younger scholars, freed from religious constraints on thought, begun to study them and inquire about their place in ancient societies. And recently, one of the leading New York City museums finally produced an acclaimed showing of homoerotic artifacts that had been stored in their basements for decades. Minds were blown. 

Fortunately, the religious fetters of mind, a leftover from a brief era of extraordinarily deluded perception management by the ruling class, are finally falling away. While older scholars may find this uncertainty to be quite uncomfortable, younger archaeologists (historians, anthropologists, mythographers, folklorists) are already evaluating material and information more clearly as the obscuration of 'religion' falls away more with each passing generation.  This is actually quite a good thing. Knowledge is dynamic. Change happens. Beliefs are binding fortresses constructed in the attempt to impose order, create a false sense of certainty, and prevent change ... but as my username says ... there is no solid ground ... not in any field or any aspect of existence. As Ian Hodder, director of Stanford University's archeology program said, commenting on the Gobeklu Tepi archaeological site that dates to the 10th millennium BCE ...

 “Many people think that it changes everything…It overturns the whole apple cart. All our theories were wrong.” 

"All our theories were wrong" is a wonderfully open starting point ... if viewed with an open mind.   

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

AWARDS

American Academy of Religion: AAR Best First Book in the History of Religions
Finalist

Society for the Scientific Study of Religion: SSSR Distinguished Book Award
Won

I have no doubt it was a very well written argued and referenced book  But his beginning world view is false meaning his conclusions also are,  and he has to change/redefine accepted  terminologies and definitions to make his theory even begin to work  And i haven't yet read one single academic reviewer who actually agrees with the theory or accepts its historical validity.  Calling it provocative or exciting or contentious  is "yes prime minister"  speak for  "out there" 

Ps i don't have as much argument about european influence on japanese religions as I do with the idea of redefining region so  it did not exist before christianity  Any student of european colonisation is  aware of the nexus between church and state   at that time. European catholicism and to a lesser extent protestantism were  state religions and the prevailing political  view was that all religions had to be official and orthodox ie state approved (only america in the 19th century stood in strong opposition to this view ) And in the ealry years of  contact, missionary activity and trade, prior to  colonisation this american pov did not exist. 

I remember, 45-50 years ago, studying the writings of jesuit priests in western  india  as part of a term at uni  on the influence of very early catholic missionaries in india.  The whole  story in japan is similar, although christianity met with much more violent resistance there, due to the   fear and mistrust of all foreigners, which characterised japanese society for centuries. Indian culture was already a mix, of "national" and religious influences   and much less xenophobic, allowing easy early inroads by christianity. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
39 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

For the past 200 years Western archaeology has been interpreting evidence through a very modern (largely unconscious) 'religious' lens that's based on several false premises which have contributed to the construction of a cognitive bias. This institutionalized and enforced closed mind has contaminated the entire field.  

In the field of archaeology, these false premises and the resulting cognitive bias have obstructed research, inhibited progress, and distorted an understanding / interpretation of evidence. This is also the case in the fields of history, anthropology, and mythography / folkloristics. While much of this contamination and distortion is very subtle (with far reaching implications), let me give you just one very blatant example:

From the early 1800s through the 1960s, whenever archaeologists dug up artifacts that depicted homoerotic representations, it was the standard in the field to either destroy them on the spot (an incalculable loss) or surreptitiously sell them to private collectors who kept them hidden. The conditioned 'religious' lens caused archaeologists to see these artifacts as, at best, inconvenient anomalies that if acknowledged would require a critical examination of any number of institutionalized beliefs in academia and society. Starting in the late 60s, this practice gradually stopped, and for the next 40 years when these artifacts were discovered, they ended up in the sub-basements of museums ... unstudied and not displayed publicly. Only in the last decade or so have increasing numbers of younger scholars, freed from religious constraints on thought, begun to study them and inquire about their place in ancient societies. And recently, one of the leading New York City museums finally produced an acclaimed showing of homoerotic artifacts that had been stored in their basements for decades. Minds were blown. 

Fortunately, the religious fetters of mind, a leftover from a brief era of extraordinarily deluded perception management by the ruling class, are finally falling away. While older scholars may find this uncertainty to be quite uncomfortable, younger archaeologists (historians, anthropologists, mythographers, folklorists) are already evaluating material and information more clearly as the obscuration of 'religion' falls away more with each passing generation.  This is actually quite a good thing. Knowledge is dynamic. Change happens. Beliefs are binding fortresses constructed in the attempt to impose order, create a false sense of certainty, and prevent change ... but as my username says ... there is no solid ground ... not in any field or any aspect of existence. As Ian Hodder, director of Stanford University's archeology program said, commenting on the Gobeklu Tepi archaeological site that dates to the 10th millennium BCE ...

 “Many people think that it changes everything…It overturns the whole apple cart. All our theories were wrong.” 

"All our theories were wrong" is a wonderfully open starting point ... if viewed with an open mind.   

 

Your opening belief statement is, i think, over emphasised/exaggerated,  largely untrue, and actually patronising   YOUR argument is the ONLY way to legitimise an opposing one, so of course you must make and maintain it.

 For example i don't think modern psychology, sociology  history or cognitive studies is influenced a t all by religion and hasnt been for a couple of generations.  

It is our knowldge of evolved human psychology and cognition which proves to us how humans construct beliefs and ritualise beliefs into religion and a   lot of this has only been made possible in the last two decades with improved brain imaging techniques  and improved testing of childhood cognitive processing  

But I LOVE your next paragraph. ie  EVERYONE else is wrong and josephson is right because  everyone else  has not realised the y have been brainwashed into  cognitive bias  ROFLMAO I suspect even the man himself would go that far He is just presenting a different theory.  Look, back in the seventies this was recognised as a problem and steps take to overcome it  I would argue that basically, such  cognitive bias was recognised and taken into account, from the revolutionary  period of university education in the sixties and seventies.  where traditionalism was overthrown. 

I doubt it was  the standard or  conditioned repsonse to destroy homoerotic artefacts Yes homsexuality was ilegal and punishable and the ordinary man was not yet ready to accept homosexuaitya s normal, but   the artefacts would have had great value and while the y could not have been put on public display i am sure that rather  than being destroyed many were sold to private collectors  with a wider cultural  tolerance  Most educators especially, but also academics know the y have to bow to public opinions and moralities because the y are publicly funded.  That does NOT mean the y just accept  the cultural taboos of the time in their work even if forced to do in things like public displays. .

hey it was the sexual revolution of  the sixties created by the pill and the need for more women to join the workforce which changed public moralities and reduced the power of traditional institutions   it was not the ruling class which set standards of morality but individual people and the necessities of socio economic reality ONLY as those realities changed were peole freed and empowered to alter their basic ethical and moral beliefs  

When i was born a man still faced gaol for promising a woman he would marry her and then reneging, especially but not only, if he took advantage of her  AS women's  economic social political power grew, such attitudes and values became unnecessary and  anachronistic but in a society where a married woman was not allowed to  work because there were not enough jobs for me,and there was no such legal entity a s rape within a marriage,  ethics and moralities were determined by those realities.  

Even in the seventies young women were "sent away" and their children adopted out in secret  so no one would know the y had got pregnant This reflected the strong social values and taboos of the time,  but also the economic realities A young single mother would have had great difficulty supporting a child without govt support, and apart from  the rich, families did not have the resources to care for an extra child

Also because a mother was expected to stay home with her children such a young mother would not have been able to get work to support herself.

NOT oppression  by any ruling class,. just the socio economic reality of living in that time. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dhurfjooydig
15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I have no doubt it was a very well written argued and referenced book  But his beginning world view is false meaning his conclusions also are,  and he has to change/redefine accepted  terminologies and definitions to make his theory even begin to work  And i haven't yet read one single academic reviewer who actually agrees with the theory or accepts its historical validity.  Calling it provocative or exciting or contentious  is "yes prime minister"  speak for  "out there" 

Ps i don't have as much argument about european influence on japanese religions as I do with the idea of redefining region so  it did not exist before christianity  Any student of european colonisation is  aware of the nexus between church and state   at that time.

I remember, 45-50 years ago, studying the writings of jesuit priests in western  india  as part of a term at uni  on the influence of very early catholic missionaries in india.  The whole  story in japan is similar, although christianity met with much more violent resistance there, due to the   fear and mistrust of all foreigners which characterised japanese society for centuries. India culture was already a mix,  and much less xenophobic, allowing easy ealry inroads by christianity. 

I understand your position. It is a fairly common position for someone of your age to hold and it is obvious that you are knowledgeable within this time-bound position ... (that is, within the context of the social zeitgeist you came of age in). And no doubt at one point this position was considered a very solid and respectable position to hold. Fifty years ago it was the very rare person who even thought to critically examine the history of the concepts of 'religion' and 'supernatural' ... these concepts were just taken for granted and regarded as somehow intrinsic to human existence. If such thoughts did occur they were kept private for fear of academic and social ostracism.

But we are increasingly becoming a secular society and our understanding of these archaic terms / concepts will continue to change as the social / political context within which they were created is critically examined with some distance. It's not surprising that someone of your age, raised in a Christian dominated society, would resist this critical examination and feel the need to diminish Josephson's work (and, implicitly, the similar work of countless other scholars). Faith is intricately bound up with self-identity ... and the critical examination of the very concept (not just the term) of 'religion' in a historical context is likely to be viewed (perhaps unconsciously) as a provocation that feels like a demand to critically examine your own self-identity. Examining one's self-identity and one's culturally conditioned beliefs is foreign territory for your generation (and for much of subsequent generations) and it is difficult. There is no road map and no rules for this critical examination of elements of one's existence that most people aren't even aware of. The critical examination of belief and self-identity is necessarily a state of uncertainty ... but this uncertainty ultimately leads to a state of unfettered clarity. 

All this to say ... a conversation with you re: the pros and cons of Josephson's work would be interesting, but not as it stand now with you rejecting his work wholesale without having read it. If you decide to read it (without pre-judgement) then lets start again. Until then, I see no benefit in discussing the origin of religion with you further.  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dhurfjooydig
34 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I doubt it was  the standard or  conditioned repsonse to destroy homoerotic artefacts

This is well documented though the documentation isn't easily accessible. I learned about it in a museum studies grad program that I started but didn't finished ... I decided that the museum milieu was a little bit too suffocating for me to career in so I moved on to other fields of study.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

I understand your position. It is a fairly common position for someone of your age to hold and it is obvious that you are knowledgeable within this time-bound position ... (that is, within the context of the social zeitgeist you came of age in). And no doubt at one point this position was considered a very solid and respectable position to hold. Fifty years ago it was the very rare person who even thought to critically examine the history of the concepts of 'religion' and 'supernatural' ... these concepts were just taken for granted and regarded as somehow intrinsic to human existence. If such thoughts did occur they were kept private for fear of academic and social ostracism.

But we are increasingly becoming a secular society and our understanding of these archaic terms / concepts will continue to change as the social / political context within which they were created is critically examined with some distance. It's not surprising that someone of your age, raised in a Christian dominated society, would resist this critical examination and feel the need to diminish Josephson's work (and, implicitly, the similar work of countless other scholars). Faith is intricately bound up with self-identity ... and the critical examination of the very concept (not just the term) of 'religion' in a historical context is likely to be viewed (perhaps unconsciously) as a provocation that feels like a demand to critically examine your own self-identity. Examining one's self-identity and one's culturally conditioned beliefs is foreign territory for your generation (and for much of subsequent generations) and it is difficult. There is no road map and no rules for this critical examination of elements of one's existence that most people aren't even aware of. The critical examination of belief and self-identity is necessarily a state of uncertainty ... but this uncertainty ultimately leads to a state of unfettered clarity. 

All this to say ... a conversation with you re: the pros and cons of Josephson's work would be interesting, but not as it stand now with you rejecting his work wholesale without having read it. If you decide to read it (without pre-judgement) then lets start again. Until then, I see no benefit in discussing the origin of religion with you further.  

 

I was born and raised an atheist secular humanist  as it happens :)  I went to a secular school and a secular university was taught to think objectively and to examine and deconstruct texts from childhod.

 if you read widely enough and use the experiences  of writers you get an overview and understanding of societies and humanity across the ages  You can put your mind into that  of a mongol horseman a  russian serf a japanese geisha or a person about to  sacrifice to a mayan god.

You can understand and appreciate how humans think by understanding how you think how you have constructed a certain world view etc. You can consciously alter your subjective realities to construct alternative realities and perceptions so tha t you ca see things from the perspective of the condemned man and the executioner. .  You can  acknowledge how your life and times influence people of your generation  but you have a choice as to whether to conform or not. 

 But he beauty of being human is that we are self aware, self critical, analytical, capable o f imagination, extrapolation, logic, deduction, etc So  while we are limited by knowledge and understanding of our time, we can  use that to examine ourselves and those of the past .

Do you really think that  even a boy brought up in the fifties and sixties in rural australi was limited to the cultural perspectives of his time and place?  I could read almost anything by anyone as i was reading adult books from th library by the time i started school and my parents never censored anything i chose to read  So i have looked through the eyes of people from  cro magnon times to many millennia in the human future as interpreted by thousands of authors form dozens of countries and beleifs I have read almost every classic book write in english and many translated  from foreign writers. i have read almost every science fiction novel published in english  up until the seventies thousands of books on all sorts of cultures and societies . These give PERSPECTIVES of every author and the factual ones give hundreds  of different perspectives. 

so i do not accept that either myself or the many other well read people i know are trapped within a paradigm of limited cultural understanding  Or that we are products just of  our youth or even our era.

 I still read several books, several newspapers, and several magazines, on things like science nature philosophy politics etc.  most days,  and as culture and values change so do my own understandings of them   I know how people from across millennia thought and felt  and know why the y acted as they did,  just as i know why i feel, and think, and act as i do   I dont just know academically how and why a man or woman from england 200 years ago would feel  and think, I can also put myself in their lives and thus think as they do, by setting aside all modern knowledge and having only the knowledge available to them and the reality of THEIR life to construct my beliefs values and moralities. .Know enough about ANY culture or milieu and you can do this for people from it .

I do not have a faith or a belief in god, although i have a practical working relationship with an entity humans often call god :)  thus i don't have any preconceived ideas or beliefs around god or religion   To me belief and spirituality is an evolved form of cognition by which humans make sense of their world and survive within it. Thus inevitably it has existed ever since humans evolved self awareness . . Thus it is just silly to argue that european christians were religious but the peoples they encountered and often colonised were not. There are no humans who are not predisposed to religious belief and do not tend towards constructing beliefs faiths and religions  All human have some form of faith belief and spiritual thinking, and we all tend to codify and formalise or ritualise  these thoughts into religious forms  Christianity is just one form of religious expression It was preceded by  (and actually evolved out of)  other earlier forms of religion, coexisted with many  and will possibly be superseded by more relevant forms when man is sailing starships across the galaxy. 

You are in error when you attribute those motivations to me that you do   Because i have no inner belief or faith or religious attachment of the mind.  i have no attachment to them. I could and would live as a buddhist jainist muslin or pagan, if i lived in a society where that was the norm.  While ones relationship with god is entirely unique and individual ones connection to religion is a matter  of adaptation, cultural camouflage,  and cultural relevance  it would be hard for me to live as pagan druid in my society although i would enjoy doing so ( I regularly  spend some  time talking with the spirits of nature and the earth and strengthening my oneness with the earth and humanity.  :) )    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
20 hours ago, I hide behind words said:

The article provided various reasons why religion perpetuates itself and will keep on, be it because of "fear or love", "served a cooperative function", "psychological, neurological, historical, cultural and logistical" reasons.

 

I know. You're right. It does. I'm just not sure if this is your point. (Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was. It could be me too. ) The way I see it, it seems to be the 'reason' religion continues and so many in various belief stages have mentioned that. (I will try to endevor to read over the link again. I have to do that, because of my slight reading disability. ) I guess it's me. I was hoping, there was something else being used as a debate point for it's continued existence. 

Quote

You stated the harshness of the world and the article also mentioned a religious void being filled by spiritualizing a video game.

Ok. But, every is different and even how they grew up, like me, have different ways of dealing with it. Not saying any of them are wrong. My point is, non-believers have other ways. And not always having access or want to view something of one thing. 

Quote

So there is a spectrum full of reasons for religion's developments, developments as plural, as they are still ongoing, and religion did not develop and now will decline and die. It is ongoing.

Not only do all the reasons mentioned in the article seem relatable to me but also can be extroploative as other reasons for why perhaps religion developed. To add onto the reasons we already do know about that is.

Well, I can understand you seeing something that you relate to and use to show how you feel about. I think that's good. The thing is with the link, (which is good you sourced it. :yes: ) it doesn't seem to show me in it's points and why. I read something that shows something of a reason that I seem to see as something redundant and not explaining a whole group, but a specific kind. 

Quote

And there is nothing to prove or disprove.

 

Two spirits

Here is a song (art) of a "rainbowarrior of two spirits" that some others might enjoy at another time.

 

Twin spirit refers to gender and not two souls. As can be seen in the video one of the singers is actually in the role of a twin spirit (female appearing as male in this case).

And you are most likely right regarding the "wise men", as you termed it, did play the roles of physician, counselor, etc....equally likely is women also had these roles.

Unrelated trivia is the "wisemen" at the nativity scene were Zorastrian magis.

I didn't see the video, but I believe you. I am at the moment not feeling to watch the video, ( which may have a point you're making for this post. ) but I'm still trying to find the first point you're trying to make. (which I think I am seeing. ) 

I do see the 'duality' point you're making. But to me, this and the link seem to speak of 'duality' as a side-note ramification, than a reason for religion. That's me, and what I see in the points. Not that I'm dismissing it, I think it's a great thought to discuss. But, as something to see as a path to a reason, I personally don't see it. I always seem to read duality as something that comes naturally and as a result of religion in most situations. Not that religion as the result in having duality. Again, that is me. 

Quote

Sustainability

Also sustainability does have a spiritual component to it. The land is becoming sacred once again. But the ancients perhaps did this organically while we are having to be reminded of how to do it, and science is a wonderful reminder.

Oh, I don't doubt that. I have seen it myself in relations to past cultures. It does seem to be in existence today. I feel the Native Americans had that and still have, in how they participated in it. But, it's also a form that's used without religion too. 

Quote

Any new successful technology will first be used for its benefits and only much later will we work around the negative impact. Which is what I meant by science being a reminder but more of an illustrator of not only benefits but th3 negative impacts.

As Walker noted the modern hunters are responsinble for some extinctions. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond has a wonderful discourse about this.

I know that anything will have additions and extinctions in their roles. I haven't read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, but I know it's the book people love to get. (I'm a bookseller) I know of it's existence of being a respectful book. Though, if you could post a paragraph of the book to show your point, I will thank you. I'm not buying it to prove someone else's point. Sorry, *shrugs* 

Quote

Then we have examples of ancients who were not so connected to the land. Romans contributed to deforestation. Their silver smelting lead to lead and then lead pipes.

The word plumbing comes from the Latin plumbum which means lead. Well lead pipes led to drinking led-laced water.

Mental illness and crime rates rose.

But to wind this post up (actually three posts in one).  Modern industralization is recent and has exacerbated the need for sustainability and for a new spirituality coupled with science to bring it about.

Anyways thanks for bringing up ancient roles of the wise men and also about sustainability. It is nice to wonder about these things!

Which, I agree with you there. And I thank you for considering it in the talking points. I think you and I agree, how complex this is in it's consideration. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I was born and raised an atheist secular humanist  as it happens :)  I went to a secular school and a secular university was taught to think objectively and to examine and deconstruct texts from childhod.

 if you read widely enough and use the experiences  of writers you get an overview and understanding of societies and humanity across the ages  You can put your mind into that  of a mongol horseman a  russian serf a japanese geisha or a person about to  sacrifice to a mayan god.

You can understand and appreciate how humans think by understanding how you think how you have constructed a certain world view etc. You can consciously alter your subjective realities to construct alternative realities and perceptions so tha t you ca see things from the perspective of the condemned man and the executioner. .  You can  acknowledge how your life and times influence people of your generation  but you have a choice as to whether to conform or not. 

 But he beauty of being human is that we are self aware, self critical, analytical, capable o f imagination, extrapolation, logic, deduction, etc So  while we are limited by knowledge and understanding of our time, we can  use that to examine ourselves and those of the past .

Do you really think that  even a boy brought up in the fifties and sixties in rural australi was limited to the cultural perspectives of his time and place?  I could read almost anything by anyone as i was reading adult books from th library by the time i started school and my parents never censored anything i chose to read  So i have looked through the eyes of people from  cro magnon times to many millennia in the human future as interpreted by thousands of authors form dozens of countries and beleifs I have read almost every classic book write in english and many translated  from foreign writers. i have read almost every science fiction novel published in english  up until the seventies thousands of books on all sorts of cultures and societies . These give PERSPECTIVES of every author and the factual ones give hundreds  of different perspectives. 

so i do not accept that either myself or the many other well read people i know are trapped within a paradigm of limited cultural understanding  Or that we are products just of  our youth or even our era.

 I still read several books, several newspapers, and several magazines, on things like science nature philosophy politics etc.  most days,  and as culture and values change so do my own understandings of them   I know how people from across millennia thought and felt  and know why the y acted as they did,  just as i know why i feel, and think, and act as i do   I dont just know academically how and why a man or woman from england 200 years ago would feel  and think, I can also put myself in their lives and thus think as they do, by setting aside all modern knowledge and having only the knowledge available to them and the reality of THEIR life to construct my beliefs values and moralities. .Know enough about ANY culture or milieu and you can do this for people from it .

I do not have a faith or a belief in god, although i have a practical working relationship with an entity humans often call god :)  thus i don't have any preconceived ideas or beliefs around god or religion   To me belief and spirituality is an evolved form of cognition by which humans make sense of their world and survive within it. Thus inevitably it has existed ever since humans evolved self awareness . . Thus it is just silly to argue that european christians were religious but the peoples they encountered and often colonised were not. There are no humans who are not predisposed to religious belief and do not tend towards constructing beliefs faiths and religions  All human have some form of faith belief and spiritual thinking, and we all tend to codify and formalise or ritualise  these thoughts into religious forms  Christianity is just one form of religious expression It was preceded by  (and actually evolved out of)  other earlier forms of religion, coexisted with many  and will possibly be superseded by more relevant forms when man is sailing starships across the galaxy. 

You are in error when you attribute those motivations to me that you do   Because i have no inner belief or faith or religious attachment of the mind.  i have no attachment to them. I could and would live as a buddhist jainist muslin or pagan, if i lived in a society where that was the norm.  While ones relationship with god is entirely unique and individual ones connection to religion is a matter  of adaptation, cultural camouflage,  and cultural relevance  it would be hard for me to live as pagan druid in my society although i would enjoy doing so ( I regularly  spend some  time talking with the spirits of nature and the earth and strengthening my oneness with the earth and humanity.  :) )    

We are all shaped by the cultural influences we are exposed to and some get stuck, you reflect a strong foundation in religious thinking, you call it secular humanist but it is run of the mill meat and potatoes fundie, your knowedge base is about 40 years ago, Either you don't know and goggle things not having a current understanding or you argue from google or you just have not updated yourself, it is not fun or interesting to argue with as you are only invested in being right, posting outdated information, argumentation is about furthering the point being argued, in other words, bringing new insights, a new way to consider things, it is supposed to bring refinement and a bigger perspective than lends to a more inclusive perspective.

 

This is not to say that I don't have biases, I do, it is the counters of my peers that help me account for them as I frame a position argumentation at its best brings people together, it is not apparent you know this and you will spend paragraphs defending you are right and never consider the constructive value of the feedback, which could help you in a lot of ways namely, in getting along many many posters have told you this countless times, For ex: SG's counter to you is fair, gracious and constructive, in return he gets a defense, when you should have just taken what you could use from it to refine your position and leave behind the rest. This leads me to conclude you are not as savvy as you brag. The need to be be right at all costs shows in your posts. 

 I have taken many courses the last 10 years, and you are out of date on many things, especially on the brain, Psychology, etc.etc. Philosophy, Literature, etc. for instance you show your age with your position on the irrelevance and useleness of human emotions, I personally recommended the Handbook of Attachment Theory to you countless times, and I don't see evidence that you have read it. It is not that you are an idiot, you are not an idiot, it is that you argue from positions that no longer are valid, If you know them to begin with, instead you think your position is right and you will only goggle and reference the sources that confirm your biases. The area you do have insight and seem to shine forth is in caring for your wife, the very best you shows in this context.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
11 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

The origins of religion are simple. We wanted to feel important. 

Well, I think a lot of people wanted to feel important and uses it to further that. :D 

I think some today still do. :o 

9 hours ago, I hide behind words said:
12 hours ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Don't think The Devil is ever going to change.

Change is the only constant and progress in every category will occur.

The Devil if Satan is an employee of God. Dualism is an illusion.

And every knee shall bow and not for punishment but blessings. 

As a matter of fact I convert demons and cast them out by telling them to leave and to tell others they all can be forgiven if they ask for it and to return and help us as we need their help now.

A simple and humble work. No theatrics no fighting evil. It is all about healing for all generations.

God is not going to send angels to help us as that is our job to help others. As a matter of fact we are the angels and the demons. It is all part of humanity.

Well, your point of us as the angels and the demons can be seen as that, but I feel there is no proof. So, any subjective points can label us humans, right? :tu: 

By the way, I thought you debated Dualism as a reason for religion, and not as an illusion? Did I misunderstood that? 

8 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

If it's all about self-preservation, you may as well be a Satanist. They're all about the self. 

I agree with this. In which I think, makes it not so simple in the basic thoughts of religion and spirituality. Despite the preaching of sacrifice and do more for your fellow human, the need to keep yourself safe and important in the scheme of things seems to be also a issue to guide one with. I wonder, how does that coincide in one's role of their belief. You 'love' your neighbor, but look down your neighbor and 'push' them into ways that hurt them, doesn't seem to merge very well in the same meaning, does it? ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
8 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

For the past 200 years Western archaeology has been interpreting evidence through a very modern (largely unconscious) 'religious' lens that's based on several false premises which have contributed to the construction of a cognitive bias. This institutionalized and enforced closed mind has contaminated the entire field.  

In the field of archaeology, these false premises and the resulting cognitive bias have obstructed research, inhibited progress, and distorted an understanding / interpretation of evidence. This is also the case in the fields of history, anthropology, and mythography / folkloristics. While much of this contamination and distortion is very subtle (with far reaching implications), let me give you just one very blatant example:

From the early 1800s through the 1960s, whenever archaeologists dug up artifacts that depicted homoerotic representations, it was the standard in the field to either destroy them on the spot (an incalculable loss) or surreptitiously sell them to private collectors who kept them hidden. The conditioned 'religious' lens caused archaeologists to see these artifacts as, at best, inconvenient anomalies that if acknowledged would require a critical examination of any number of institutionalized beliefs in academia and society. Starting in the late 60s, this practice gradually stopped, and for the next 40 years when these artifacts were discovered, they ended up in the sub-basements of museums ... unstudied and not displayed publicly. Only in the last decade or so have increasing numbers of younger scholars, freed from religious constraints on thought, begun to study them and inquire about their place in ancient societies. And recently, one of the leading New York City museums finally produced an acclaimed showing of homoerotic artifacts that had been stored in their basements for decades. Minds were blown. 

Fortunately, the religious fetters of mind, a leftover from a brief era of extraordinarily deluded perception management by the ruling class, are finally falling away. While older scholars may find this uncertainty to be quite uncomfortable, younger archaeologists (historians, anthropologists, mythographers, folklorists) are already evaluating material and information more clearly as the obscuration of 'religion' falls away more with each passing generation.  This is actually quite a good thing. Knowledge is dynamic. Change happens. Beliefs are binding fortresses constructed in the attempt to impose order, create a false sense of certainty, and prevent change ... but as my username says ... there is no solid ground ... not in any field or any aspect of existence. As Ian Hodder, director of Stanford University's archeology program said, commenting on the Gobeklu Tepi archaeological site that dates to the 10th millennium BCE ...

 “Many people think that it changes everything…It overturns the whole apple cart. All our theories were wrong.” 

"All our theories were wrong" is a wonderfully open starting point ... if viewed with an open mind.   

 

I'm sure, we have seen this occurring as we see our history retold in many examples. :yes: 

The Titanic and it's telling of it's sinking and the materials it was made with, seems like a good example of this to me. :) 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I do not have a faith or a belief in god, although i have a practical working relationship with an entity humans often call god :)  thus i don't have any preconceived ideas or beliefs around god or religion   To me belief and spirituality is an evolved form of cognition by which humans make sense of their world and survive within it. Thus inevitably it has existed ever since humans evolved self awareness . . Thus it is just silly to argue that european christians were religious but the peoples they encountered and often colonised were not. There are no humans who are not predisposed to religious belief and do not tend towards constructing beliefs faiths and religions  All human have some form of faith belief and spiritual thinking, and we all tend to codify and formalise or ritualise  these thoughts into religious forms  Christianity is just one form of religious expression It was preceded by  (and actually evolved out of)  other earlier forms of religion, coexisted with many  and will possibly be superseded by more relevant forms when man is sailing starships across the galaxy. 

Walker,

There you go again you don't have a belief in god and yet you believe in angels, and the church heals people. You continually argue against yourself, one of the reasons that make it difficult for me to take you seriously.

You do realize that cro magnum is no longer used to describe our hominid line as it is currently referred to as Homo Sapien, and you impose your views on what they thought or how they interpreted their environment. If they and older hominid lines were as fearful of the elements of nature as you suggest then we wouldn't exist today.

To me you appear to have spent a fair amount of time reading and that is fine but I don't see enough exterior life experience involved in some of your critiques and find them lacking in substance. Yes in your responses "I" seems to be the operative word and for me does not seem real based on the months of following discussions and having tried to engage you in concepts outside of "I".

This isn't an attack it's an observation so the usual justification novel in response won't be necessary.

jmccr8

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
11 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

I understand your position. It is a fairly common position for someone of your age to hold and it is obvious that you are knowledgeable within this time-bound position ... (that is, within the context of the social zeitgeist you came of age in). And no doubt at one point this position was considered a very solid and respectable position to hold. Fifty years ago it was the very rare person who even thought to critically examine the history of the concepts of 'religion' and 'supernatural' ... these concepts were just taken for granted and regarded as somehow intrinsic to human existence. If such thoughts did occur they were kept private for fear of academic and social ostracism.

But we are increasingly becoming a secular society and our understanding of these archaic terms / concepts will continue to change as the social / political context within which they were created is critically examined with some distance. It's not surprising that someone of your age, raised in a Christian dominated society, would resist this critical examination and feel the need to diminish Josephson's work (and, implicitly, the similar work of countless other scholars). Faith is intricately bound up with self-identity ... and the critical examination of the very concept (not just the term) of 'religion' in a historical context is likely to be viewed (perhaps unconsciously) as a provocation that feels like a demand to critically examine your own self-identity. Examining one's self-identity and one's culturally conditioned beliefs is foreign territory for your generation (and for much of subsequent generations) and it is difficult. There is no road map and no rules for this critical examination of elements of one's existence that most people aren't even aware of. The critical examination of belief and self-identity is necessarily a state of uncertainty ... but this uncertainty ultimately leads to a state of unfettered clarity. 

All this to say ... a conversation with you re: the pros and cons of Josephson's work would be interesting, but not as it stand now with you rejecting his work wholesale without having read it. If you decide to read it (without pre-judgement) then lets start again. Until then, I see no benefit in discussing the origin of religion with you further.  

 

Hi No Solid Ground,

I have been enjoying your input here and I know we have had some run ins in the past but have never held a bias against you because of them.:tu:

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
13 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

If it's all about self-preservation, you may as well be a Satanist. They're all about the self. 

And completely oblivious to everyone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, Sherapy said:

We are all shaped by the cultural influences we are exposed to and some get stuck, you reflect a strong foundation in religious thinking, you call it secular humanist but it is run of the mill meat and potatoes fundie, your knowedge base is about 40 years ago, Either you don't know and goggle things not having a current understanding or you argue from google or you just have not updated yourself, it is not fun or interesting to argue with as you are only invested in being right, posting outdated information, argumentation is about furthering the point being argued, in other words, bringing new insights, a new way to consider things, it is supposed to bring refinement and a bigger perspective than lends to a more inclusive perspective.

 

This is not to say that I don't have biases, I do, it is the counters of my peers that help me account for them as I frame a position argumentation at its best brings people together, it is not apparent you know this and you will spend paragraphs defending you are right and never consider the constructive value of the feedback, which could help you in a lot of ways namely, in getting along many many posters have told you this countless times, For ex: SG's counter to you is fair, gracious and constructive, in return he gets a defense, when you should have just taken what you could use from it to refine your position and leave behind the rest. This leads me to conclude you are not as savvy as you brag. The need to be be right at all costs shows in your posts. 

 I have taken many courses the last 10 years, and you are out of date on many things, especially on the brain, Psychology, etc.etc. Philosophy, Literature, etc. for instance you show your age with your position on the irrelevance and useleness of human emotions, I personally recommended the Handbook of Attachment Theory to you countless times, and I don't see evidence that you have read it. It is not that you are an idiot, you are not an idiot, it is that you argue from positions that no longer are valid, If you know them to begin with, instead you think your position is right and you will only goggle and reference the sources that confirm your biases. The area you do have insight and seem to shine forth is in caring for your wife, the very best you shows in this context.

 Bold bit one Define religious thinking

I am not religious in that i do not go to church, do not pray to gods, have no rituals, . do not believe in an afterlife, do not have a belief based ethical or moral value system.

I m deeply spiritual in tha t i see all humans connected and not as individuals and our planet as the ecosystem which sustains us  I recognise the morality of modern christianity a  the only relevant religious morality  for me living where i do, I am an evolutionist and see the bible as a set of writings by wise men and women trying to use god as the authority for social and individual behaviours.   Obviously knowing that a god exists I cant be an atheist as i was once   Iam a social conservtive beccue logically socil conservatism provides the safest and most structured society for all and keeps peole safer.  

Bold bit 2

As i said i am a social conservative and believe in older types of values and moralities because they are measurably better in producing better outcomes for people especially societies more vulnerable people. .   There is no religious component in this but christianity is a conservative religion even in the modern age and so some of our values overlap  

Actually i have in my memory accumulated knowledge form over my life (65 years or so)  and from books wriitten over more than a century    One does not stop learning or  growing in knowldge as long as one keeps reading.   Once upon a time you criticised me for not sourcing stuff so now i use google to provide sources to keep you happy and you complain that iam just googling to find out stuff. :( If i don't know something I admit it and i google it   Take me to a quiz night or play trivial pursuit with me and you will find out just how much knowledge  my mind has stored But it is not just knowledge it is the learned practice of comparing and mapping different data to construct a wider understanding of a society. 

I am not here to amuse you :) And my sources are NOT out dated   they are modern sources in opposition to your cherished beliefs. 

bold bit 3

You are correct. i dont play games with words or  try to frame an argument to win support  I spend a lit of time in reflection and analysis of myself and have done so since i was an infant  You say the t no one can eliminate anger or hate or enny or greed etc Bit this can be done IF you understand the causes of these constructs , the nature of these constructs, and how to reconstruct them. So to control oneself one must know oneself intimately including all your biases But more than this  I have no relious based moralities I like ethics which when enacted bring measurable constructive outcomes . 

bold bit 4 

 

I haven't got much interest in getting along or rather it is more important for me to be truthful than to be polite.

Bold bit 5

I've been attending ongoing courses all my life. it's called professional development and it is compulsory for teachers in my state. There are conferences every year on subjects like geography history health etc but a lot more on cognition .speech psychology etc.    My ideas are not out of date Check the sources i use. You will find the y come from this millennia   For example the stuff about the nature of emotions is VERY new  It is from the science of neurocognition and has only become possible with very advanced mri scans which show how we build and construct language and emotions. There are the most modern psychologists and neurologists working on how to retrain minds and brains, so that phobias and fears can be unlearned and eliminated.  There a are modern courses teaching chidlren how to recognise the physiological causes and symptoms of anger and fear and thus to prevent them form forming into anger and fear in the mind and body. .

  i could argue tha t your views on parenting are a hangover from tt new age hippie period from the seventies, when schools were actually told children should not be taught to spell because this would destroy their creativity  education is thankfully returning to more traditional and effective forms of teaching . 

I have no problem wit attachment theory it was taught when i was studying  child development and has become popular BUT you use it to explain why and how children become religious . It has no relevance to this a t all.  Children construct spiritual and religious beliefs from within their own minds, not via attachment to parents. You do realise that attachmenttheory is a theory from the fifties and sixties i guess ?  So  I guess you dont mind ALL older theories :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

ctually i have in my memory accumulated knowledge form over my life (65 years or so)

Is that give or take 10 or 20:w00t:

jm,ccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i could argue tha t your views on parenting are a hangover from tt new age hippie period from the seventies, when schools were actually told children should not be taught to spell because this would destroy their creativity  education is thankfully returning to more traditional and effective forms of teaching

Or if someone actually had children they might have a different perspective of how to raise children. I got knuckle sandwiches after the razor strop wore out and have never struck a child because the whoppings never changed who I am so being  a guide is preferable. okay in part those whoppings did teach me to refine who I am and where I grew up, if you can't take it then don't dish it out. And yes some children can't spell but they aren't stupid, not all but some 

. Well with the proper guide they won't fail in life but they have to choose the guide and you should be the guide they want you to be. One should realize that I am talking in a broad social spectrum so the types of guides they look for will differ widely.(guides, mentors)

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Is that give or take 10 or 20:w00t:

jm,ccr8

No. I am almost 67 and have some memories going back to about the age of 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

 Bold bit one Define religious thinking

I am not religious in that i do not go to church, do not pray to gods, have no rituals, . do not believe in an afterlife, do not have a belief based ethical or moral value system.

I m deeply spiritual in tha t i see all humans connected and not as individuals and our planet as the ecosystem which sustains us  I recognise the morality of modern christianity a  the only relevant religious morality  for me living where i do, I am an evolutionist and see the bible as a set of writings by wise men and women trying to use god as the authority for social and individual behaviours.   Obviously knowing that a god exists I cant be an atheist as i was once   Iam a social conservtive beccue logically socil conservatism provides the safest and most structured society for all and keeps peole safer.  

Bold bit 2

As i said i am a social conservative and believe in older types of values and moralities because they are measurably better in producing better outcomes for people especially societies more vulnerable people. .   There is no religious component in this but christianity is a conservative religion even in the modern age and so some of our values overlap  

Actually i have in my memory accumulated knowledge form over my life (65 years or so)  and from books wriitten over more than a century    One does not stop learning or  growing in knowldge as long as one keeps reading.   Once upon a time you criticised me for not sourcing stuff so now i use google to provide sources to keep you happy and you complain that iam just googling to find out stuff. :( If i don't know something I admit it and i google it   Take me to a quiz night or play trivial pursuit with me and you will find out just how much knowledge  my mind has stored But it is not just knowledge it is the learned practice of comparing and mapping different data to construct a wider understanding of a society. 

I am not here to amuse you :) And my sources are NOT out dated   they are modern sources in opposition to your cherished beliefs. 

bold bit 3

You are correct. i dont play games with words or  try to frame an argument to win support  I spend a lit of time in reflection and analysis of myself and have done so since i was an infant  You say the t no one can eliminate anger or hate or enny or greed etc Bit this can be done IF you understand the causes of these constructs , the nature of these constructs, and how to reconstruct them. So to control oneself one must know oneself intimately including all your biases But more than this  I have no relious based moralities I like ethics which when enacted bring measurable constructive outcomes . 

bold bit 4 

 

I haven't got much interest in getting along or rather it is more important for me to be truthful than to be polite.

Bold bit 5

I've been attending ongoing courses all my life. it's called professional development and it is compulsory for teachers in my state. There are conferences every year on subjects like geography history health etc but a lot more on cognition .speech psychology etc.    My ideas are not out of date Check the sources i use. You will find the y come from this millennia   For example the stuff about the nature of emotions is VERY new  It is from the science of neurocognition and has only become possible with very advanced mri scans which show how we build and construct language and emotions. There are the most modern psychologists and neurologists working on how to retrain minds and brains, so that phobias and fears can be unlearned and eliminated.  There a are modern courses teaching chidlren how to recognise the physiological causes and symptoms of anger and fear and thus to prevent them form forming into anger and fear in the mind and body. .

  i could argue tha t your views on parenting are a hangover from tt new age hippie period from the seventies, when schools were actually told children should not be taught to spell because this would destroy their creativity  education is thankfully returning to more traditional and effective forms of teaching . 

I have no problem wit attachment theory it was taught when i was studying  child development and has become popular BUT you use it to explain why and how children become religious . It has no relevance to this a t all.  Children construct spiritual and religious beliefs from within their own minds, not via attachment to parents. You do realise that attachmenttheory is a theory from the fifties and sixties i guess ?  So  I guess you dont mind ALL older theories :) 

 

Nonsense, I know you haven't read the Handbook of Attachment Theory because it has a whole lot to say about religion, of course one can contribute and discuss, add their two cents, but they have to read the book first. Read it, then let's discuss it. 

I understand that based on where you live and your marriage it works best for you to hold a "traditional" position on all things god and I can read between the lines you hold the Bible dear. You believe in angels and miracles. I don't have an issue with this, I think it is awesome you have your faith, I think it works for you. You don't have to sell us on your path, browbeat us with it, we will take from your posts what we want if anything, we are all adults here. Why don't we just share our journeys and extend the respect that we have all found our way. On a lighter note, you say you wear the same pants that you bought from the second hand store ( where I live it is really cool to shop the second hand stores). 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Or if someone actually had children they might have a different perspective of how to raise children. I got knuckle sandwiches after the razor strop wore out and have never struck a child because the whoppings never changed who I am so being  a guide is preferable. okay in part those whoppings did teach me to refine who I am and where I grew up, if you can't take it then don't dish it out. And yes some children can't spell but they aren't stupid, not all but some 

. Well with the proper guide they won't fail in life but they have to choose the guide and you should be the guide they want you to be. One should realize that I am talking in a broad social spectrum so the types of guides they look for will differ widely.(guides, mentors)

jmccr8

I've raised  12 young people ranging in age from birth to adulthood, some for only a years or two, some for over a decade. Ive even raised two generations of young people A homeless young woman of 16 with two children of her own, and then (  after a messy and mixed family relationship with 6 kids form 3 fathers)  those two daughters when they turned about 15 and were kicked out of their home.   I was punished with a variety of things but mostly  piece of cane but only when   I deserved it, always with love and always calmly well after the misdemeanour  so we all had time for reflection  and with an explanation of why my behaviour was being punished   I've never hit an adult or a child except to protect myself or someone else  But i know that  loving corporal punishment can raise children who are non violent, very respectful and well behaved  loving, and with strong self discipline

 i am talking about a whole state seduction system which for a decade ibn the late 70s and eighties refused to allow teachers to correct a child's spelling because this might damage or traumatise  the child in some way.

As a consequence we ended up for a while with teachers who could not spell or use basic grammar  because they were never taught how to  This is different from the few children with genuine learning difficulties One of the best classes i ever taught was about a dozen 15 year old boys( In the mid eighties) who had never learned to read or write My job was to get them to be functionally literate  I devised programme beginning with a  basic sentence structure  and by the end of a year all were not only functionally literate but could write poetry    My relationship with them endured for decades because i was the one who gave them the skills to apply for a job and  to get a drivers licence but also because i turned them from hating and fearing reading and writing into enjoying it     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
19 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Nonsense, I know you haven't read the Handbook of Attachment Theory because it has a whole lot to say about religion, of course one can contribute and discuss, add their two cents, but they have to read the book first. Read it, then let's discuss it. 

I understand that based on where you live and your marriage it works best for you to hold a "traditional" position on all things god and I can read between the lines you hold the Bible dear. You believe in angels and miracles. I don't have an issue with this, I think it is awesome you have your faith, I think it works for you. You don't have to sell us on your path, browbeat us with it, we will take from your posts what we want if anything, we are all adults here. Why don't we just share our journeys and extend the respect that we have all found our way. On a lighter note, you say you wear the same pants that you bought from the second hand store ( where I live it is really cool to shop the second hand stores). 

 

 

 

 

I don't hold the bible dear i live by the good parts of the moral principles in the bible It Is not history it is not god's word and it is not infallible It must be used in accordance with modern social expectations  Eg not stealing loving others and not being materialistic     I do not BELIEVE in angels or miracles i know the y exist (there is a big difference here and one which is beyond your abilty to accept)  You see if it is not belief and angels are real then whether you accept it or not these beings live in and on the same earth as you do    By insisting it is only belief you let yourself be a non believer  and thats ok . .  Buying second hand clothes is also based on both biblical principles of non materialism and good stewardship but also on sustainable use of resources.  I am not trying to convince you of my belief but of a reality which we both share and exists for you just as much as it does for me.  It is quite possible that one day you will be helped or saved by a real angel or the intervention of  a god  (or then again it might never happen but because they are real the possibility is always real)

Attachment theory goes back to the 1950s I note a few recent books with the name handbook of attachment theory  NO i havent read them but i have known of ,studied and used attachment theory since the ealry 1970s where it was part of the psychology course 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html 

it does  not support or explain the formation of religious and spiritual belief in very young infants.  For example the children of atheists show the same construction of belief in magical entities, as those of  theist parents. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Or if someone actually had children they might have a different perspective of how to raise children. I got knuckle sandwiches after the razor strop wore out and have never struck a child because the whoppings never changed who I am so being  a guide is preferable. okay in part those whoppings did teach me to refine who I am and where I grew up, if you can't take it then don't dish it out. And yes some children can't spell but they aren't stupid, not all but some 

. Well with the proper guide they won't fail in life but they have to choose the guide and you should be the guide they want you to be. One should realize that I am talking in a broad social spectrum so the types of guides they look for will differ widely.(guides, mentors)

jmccr8

Typically, this is what happens, the kids that were abused ( not pointing you out) vow a do no harm ethic in favor of being an effective guide. Kids tend to push us to aspire to great heights, I didn't lay a finger on my sons, I took the time to parent and guide them our example teaches the best. My kids didn't run wild, I was a consistent mom who did her job.  A parent has to be someone a child can be proud of and want to emulate. My friends who are parents reach out to remind each other that we have to walk our talk. It is unheard of to hit a kid now a days and call this quality parenting. I can't imagine giving my mother accolades for her parenting, it was horrendous and should have not been repeated, period. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I've raised  12 young people ranging in age from birth to adulthood, some for only a years or two, some for over a decade. Ive even raised two generations of young people A homeless young woman of 16 with two children of her own, and then (  after a messy and mixed family relationship with 6 kids form 3 fathers)  those two daughters when they turned about 15 and were kicked out of their home.   I was punished with a variety of things but mostly  piece of cane but only when   I deserved it, always with love and always calmly well after the misdemeanour  so we all had time for reflection  and with an explanation of why my behaviour was being punished   I've never hit an adult or a child except to protect myself or someone else  But i know that  loving corporal punishment can raise children who are non violent, very respectful and well behaved  loving, and with strong self discipline

 i am talking about a whole state seduction system which for a decade ibn the late 70s and eighties refused to allow teachers to correct a child's spelling because this might damage or traumatise  the child in some way.

As a consequence we ended up for a while with teachers who could not spell or use basic grammar  because they were never taught how to  This is different from the few children with genuine learning difficulties One of the best classes i ever taught was about a dozen 15 year old boys( In the mid eighties) who had never learned to read or write My job was to get them to be functionally literate  I devised programme beginning with a  basic sentence structure  and by the end of a year all were not only functionally literate but could write poetry    My relationship with them endured for decades because i was the one who gave them the skills to apply for a job and  to get a drivers licence but also because i turned them from hating and fearing reading and writing into enjoying it     

 

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't hold the bible dear i live by the good parts of the moral principles in the bible It Is not history it is not god's word and it is not infallible It must be used in accordance with modern social expectations  Eg not stealing loving others and not being materialistic     I do not BELIEVE in angels or miracles i know the y exist (there is a big difference here and one which is beyond your abilty to accept)  You see if it is not belief and angels are real then whether you accept it or not these beings live in and on the same earth as you do    By insisting it is only belief you let yourself be a non believer  and thats ok . .  Buying second hand clothes is also based on both biblical principles of non materialism and good stewardship but also on sustainable use of resources.  I am not trying to convince you of my belief but of a reality which we both share and exists for you just as much as it does for me.  It is quite possible that one day you will be helped or saved by a real angel or the intervention of  a god  (or then again it might never happen but because they are real the possibility is always real)

Maybe you don't realize it, but you are trying to convince me of your beliefs, it is not a reality that we share. I walk the path of an agnostic/Buddhist. If I am in need of intervention I don't turn to God or angels, I face reality for what it is, now this would not be for everyone, but for me it works the best. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I've raised  12 young people ranging in age from birth to adulthood, some for only a years or two, some for over a decade. Ive even raised two generations of young people A homeless young woman of 16 with two children of her own, and then (  after a messy and mixed family relationship with 6 kids form 3 fathers)  those two daughters when they turned about 15 and were kicked out of their home.   I was punished with a variety of things but mostly  piece of cane but only when   I deserved it, always with love and always calmly well after the misdemeanour  so we all had time for reflection  and with an explanation of why my behaviour was being punished   I've never hit an adult or a child except to protect myself or someone else  But i know that  loving corporal punishment can raise children who are non violent, very respectful and well behaved  loving, and with strong self discipline

 i am talking about a whole state seduction system which for a decade ibn the late 70s and eighties refused to allow teachers to correct a child's spelling because this might damage or traumatise  the child in some way.

As a consequence we ended up for a while with teachers who could not spell or use basic grammar  because they were never taught how to  This is different from the few children with genuine learning difficulties One of the best classes i ever taught was about a dozen 15 year old boys( In the mid eighties) who had never learned to read or write My job was to get them to be functionally literate  I devised programme beginning with a  basic sentence structure  and by the end of a year all were not only functionally literate but could write poetry    My relationship with them endured for decades because i was the one who gave them the skills to apply for a job and  to get a drivers licence but also because i turned them from hating and fearing reading and writing into enjoying it     

And the one time you were in a position to guide a child you were influenced by your childhood. It is not easy for you to hear, but you had a choice with the boy and I am not judging your decision to use force with him, but to point out that violence begets violence. Because we convince ourselves it is loving is immaterial. Now I am not saying it in never appropriate to stop a human from harming others, I am simply making an observation.

I have been in a situation that I could have used force to stop the lady I cared for from hitting me, but I didn't because it would not have helped, in the height of violence directed at me, I did decide to do no harm, because it would not have changed a thing, it would have only made things worse to use violence. A parent can choose the high road, just not all do.

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Typically, this is what happens, the kids that were abused ( not pointing you out) vow a do no harm ethic in favor of being an effective guide. Kids tend to push us to aspire to great heights, I didn't lay a finger on my sons, I took the time to parent and guide them our example teaches the best. My kids didn't run wild, I was a consistent mom who did her job.  A parent has to be someone a child can be proud of and want to emulate. My friends who are parents reach out to remind each other that we have to walk our talk. It is unheard of to hit a kid now a days and call this quality parenting. I can't imagine giving my mother accolades for her parenting, it was horrendous and should have not been repeated, period. 

Whereas my parents were among the best inthe world and not only we children, but many others the y took under their wings, loved and resected them.  I never feared my parents, never hated them always loved and respected them BECAUSE they modelled this to us; love and respect;  discipline without etion punishment of the behaviour while loving the miscreant.  The y never lost their temper or self control were always rational and logical , always explained things to us, always gave us a chance to give  our side of a story   BUT there were known rules and known punishments for breaking those rules We understood the purpose of the rules as we got older. Punishment was a reminder of the rules and of consequences for behaviors we chose   Of course here were a lot worse punishments than a couple of whacks with a cane,  like banning t or making us go to bed an hour earlier  Or for really bad infractions missing out on the matinee movies on saturday or the drive in on ranch night   Personally i think psychological punishment by isolation, deprivation, or other consequences, is far more harmful and cruel than  being whacked on the fingers or backsicde with a cane.  The only punishments that really stuck in my memory were the psychologically cruel ones like removing a toy for misusing it.  Even then i understood them and didn't get angry.  After alll my parents had a right and duty to teach me self control and obedience. If they had not loved me they could have allowed me to behave as i pleased and to grow up undisciplined and uncaring of others.  But such psychological punishments lasted days or weeks. while a caning lasted a few seconds.  Psychological studies show that adolescent males would rather be physically punished tha go though a lecture and far prefer the immedaite consequence of a physical punishment to a prolonged ongoing one like a grounding  To them once the punishment is administered the incidenti is over and forgotten.  it is thus far LESS likely to build up resentment and anger with parents than a prolonged and lasting punishment like the withdrawal of privileges Girls are a bit different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.