EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 605
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On May 16 2017 17:01 AbouSV wrote: nope, they carry the sins of their father(s) because religion said so.Isn't a child innocent until proven guilty? @your previous one: humans will study for the rest of their lives with different schedules or no schedules and based on needs of ... (society, evolution, tech and so on); a brain can learn, change and adapt until it dies. Cascade has point thou; the premise needs some restrictions else its tangents are to entertaining. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
My post about utopia was not even meant to be on topic anyway :p | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On May 16 2017 17:09 xM(Z wrote: nope, they carry the sins of their father(s) because religion said so. Pretty sure that's not from "religion." You have to go pretty old to find that kind of thinking, and it's certainly as secular as religious. In any event, the Judeo-Christian tradition rejects the idea thoroughly, particularly in the polemic of Ezekiel 18, but also Jeremiah 31:30 and Deut 24:16. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5160 Posts
Anyway, let's delve further into fleshing this thing out then.. As a child grows older, it gains more knowledge and is able to put things into perspective and understands the multidimensional aspect of things. There are a few things that come into the child's life during puberty that aren't in its life before that: sexuality (and its development) and the existential crisis (rebellion against authority, perhaps even on the grandest scale: the universe). Coupled with that is the gradual understanding (hopefully) of how complex everything is; instead of the go-along-with-it attitude most children have with makes for more skeptical/thought out approaches. So I definitely think there's a knowledge aspect to how innocent a child is. But for instance, if you break the barrier of sexuality for a child, well before it's actually able to comprehend what sexuality entails, other than on a theoretical basis, what could that imply for it? Could you openly start a talk about porn to a nine year old and tell it what a gangbang is (to go for an extreme)? Would you tell your child you're swingers and what that does for the dynamic of the family situation? Is there any way this harms the child or could it be actually advantageous? Will it know how to deal with this psychologically or just become a sexually deranged person later on in life from not being able to process this info that was given (too soon)? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
(It's also generally frowned upon to refer to human children as "it"  ) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
On May 16 2017 19:42 Uldridge wrote: Damn, I like the vagueness, it makes for interesting interpretations. My more concrete setting might not produce this! Anyway, let's delve further into fleshing this thing out then.. As a child grows older, it gains more knowledge and is able to put things into perspective and understands the multidimensional aspect of things. There are a few things that come into the child's life during puberty that aren't in its life before that: sexuality (and its development) and the existential crisis (rebellion against authority, perhaps even on the grandest scale: the universe). Coupled with that is the gradual understanding (hopefully) of how complex everything is; instead of the go-along-with-it attitude most children have with makes for more skeptical/thought out approaches. So I definitely think there's a knowledge aspect to how innocent a child is. But for instance, if you break the barrier of sexuality for a child, well before it's actually able to comprehend what sexuality entails, other than on a theoretical basis, what could that imply for it? Could you openly start a talk about porn to a nine year old and tell it what a gangbang is (to go for an extreme)? Would you tell your child you're swingers and what that does for the dynamic of the family situation? Is there any way this harms the child or could it be actually advantageous? Will it know how to deal with this psychologically or just become a sexually deranged person later on in life from not being able to process this info that was given (too soon)? I think it highly depends on the way you talk to them about it. I don't think that knowledge about sexuality fundamentally corrupts children, if delivered correctly. (Obviously there are things you can do and say to children that damages them, i am not talking about any of those things) Children are well aware that there are weird things that adults do that don't make sense to them. Like drinking alcohol, which tastes disgusting. Or liking food that is not disgustingly sweet. Adults also have weird hobbies. And adults often do things that children are not supposed to take part in. I am pretty sure that by choosing the right words, you can communicate the core concepts of sexuality to a child in a way that it is able to process, but which does not damage it. I actually think that the larger problem are often the adults, which are usually very uncomfortable talking about sexuality to children. This is in my opinion the main element that mystifies and weirdifies anything sexual to children. You could explain sex as an activity that adult people enjoy, and which the adult body sometimes even needs. Different people have different needs in this regard. Some people enjoy having sex with more than one person at once, or with different people from time to time, others don't. Some people like to watch videos of people having sex in artistic ways. There is also a large component of trust involved, lying about sex to your partners is very bad. Sex is sometimes, but not always, linked to love. I don't think that information like that is damaging to a child per se. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
For me, speaking about gang bang to a child is not a taboo, but just useless. They already have enough to learn, from the interpretation of their 3D world starting in the first months, to the understanding of what is harmful, or lethal (which is still impressively incomplete, or even lacking, for many 'grown-ups', youtube having plenty examples), and so on. Not even mentioning learning to speak, to express themselves, and to understand others. With most definitions, it sounds like you stop being a child, when you stop asking questions, and start admitting things 'because that's why'. To take one of your examples, I still don't get why adults that don't like the taste, and spend their time complaining about how alcohol make them feel, still drink it. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5160 Posts
On May 16 2017 20:15 farvacola wrote: It's also generally frowned upon to refer to human children as "it" I did that so I wouldn't have to perceive a gender bias (because in the case of children it really doesn't or shouldn't matter) and because I perceive children as not fully gendered. They do have a biological gender, but don't "really" act on that imo. I kind of prefer keeping it "it" until the child decides to act out its gender associated attributes or disregards them. @Simberto. You did a very good job at explaining certain concepts in a very nice, non worldview shattering way. I like it. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On May 16 2017 18:56 Yoav wrote: i'll nitpick here and say that there's a pretty big difference between the old and secular sins which were of a practical nature and religion based sins of the father which went full ideological with Adam and Eve bs. Pretty sure that's not from "religion." You have to go pretty old to find that kind of thinking, and it's certainly as secular as religious. In any event, the Judeo-Christian tradition rejects the idea thoroughly, particularly in the polemic of Ezekiel 18, but also Jeremiah 31:30 and Deut 24:16. i won't continue this discussion because i could also give some bible quotes + Show Spoiler + Exodus 20:1-26 -And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ... Fr. John Meyendorff wrote: The development of penitential practice and theology in the Byzantine world was distinct from its Western counterpart in that it never knew the influence of legalistic interpretations of salvation.... Byzantine theologians never succumbed to the temptation of reducing sin to the notion of a legal crime, which is to be sentenced, punished or forgiven. the bad thing here is that Uldridge killed it with the follow up; it's a serious and responsible guessing game now. Edit: i'll maybe take a stab at it later. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
 I'm sure Roman children grew up to be perfectly normal adults (in their day and age, which of course included going to the arena and watching slaves murder each other for entertainment).This is spoken from a purely western perspective. Eastern culture has taboos on sex as well (possibly even more so than western culture), but I'm not well versed in any of the eastern philosophies and religions and have no idea where the taboo stems from. Definitely the Kama Sutra has no taboos of the kind we're discussing | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On May 16 2017 15:55 xM(Z wrote: that, coming from TL's poster child of pampering, is laughably predictable. come on dude, at least pretend to act tough so you could visualize contexts: would you want your kids to be raised by the state of Finland or by the Trump Organization?. just make them great again!. basically you didn't get it and talked out based on own fears. Edit: the busiest time in a humans life is when he's working or in the latest years of study, so things must be squeezed in before or after that period; after it, it's to late. Me? I'd much prefer my children to be raised in Finland than anywhere near anything to do with Trump. Also, I didn't really talk at all. I just told you your Utopia sucked. And I stand by that. In my Utopia, humans can "breed" whenever the fuck they feel like doing so, and children are raised by their parents in a loving family. Not by some faceless entity like the state or <company X>. It being Utopia, there are no broken families, abusive parents, or any other such real life issues. And everybody can be "pampered like me". Disclaimer: if being raised in a pretty regular European middle class family with no major issues counts as "poster child for pampering", then sign me up for all children everywhere being pampered. Sounds fantastic. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
This also means that the trade value of your daughter is greatly reduced if she is no longer a virgin. So there is now a reason for parents to keep their daughters from anything related to sex until they are married. Men historically don't need to be as chaste as women, because, while bastards are sometimes a problem, they can't be connected to you too easily. Boys will be boys and all. Also harems are fine, but manrems (or whatever you want to call them) usually are not. It is kind of weird that all of this still suceeded when female lineage is so much easier to track. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On May 17 2017 00:00 Acrofales wrote: so much pamper, you didn't even get the memo: money > love. as in, state/corporate money > parental love. Me? I'd much prefer my children to be raised in Finland than anywhere near anything to do with Trump. Also, I didn't really talk at all. I just told you your Utopia sucked. And I stand by that. In my Utopia, humans can "breed" whenever the fuck they feel like doing so, and children are raised by their parents in a loving family. Not by some faceless entity like the state or <company X>. It being Utopia, there are no broken families, abusive parents, or any other such real life issues. And everybody can be "pampered like me". Disclaimer: if being raised in a pretty regular European middle class family with no major issues counts as "poster child for pampering", then sign me up for all children everywhere being pampered. Sounds fantastic. you obviously had both but chose to blame your fabulous upbringing on love alone(or at least you put a heavier emphasis on it). your bias is not pamper proof. are adopted kids loved less?. if so, then you have lots of explaining to do and if not, you need to eat your words because "their parents" and "a loving family" are not genetically binding nor number restrictive. there will be people, parents, raising children on both of the above scenarios: state vs corporation. is your argument that those people are shills for their respective masters with no love to give?(i doubt it's that; your argument is that you and your parents are specialer+ Show Spoiler + you'll probably want to come here with studies abundant in self-fulfilling prophecies on parenting, but just don't every assumption you made there comes from that specialer place of yours. like, "In my Utopia, humans can "breed" whenever the fuck they feel like doing so". i never said that i'm forcing people to "breed" in some specific period of time but that if they do it then, it will be legal and their kids will be taken care of for free. i'm thinking here that you also assumed that the parents will be forbidden to visit their kids or stay there(with them) once in a while... you assumed the worst(or, something worse than your idyllic scenario; you always assume the worst scenario if it's not familiar to you) because pampering breeds fearful individuals. you are fearful - unsure trying to be dominant, but i see you dude, i see you ... | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On May 16 2017 22:58 xM(Z wrote:Exodus 20:1-26 -And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ..., An obviously misleading use of the text... I really don't have to say anything beyond observe that you literally cut off the line mid sentence to omit "...but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." The point is not that guilt carries over (on a purely literal/logical level, the second part suggests guilt is replaced with love for any generation changing its ways from the preceding one) but rather that God's justice (3-4 generations) is utterly overpowered by God's mercy (1000 generations). Anyway, while obviously churches have many different practices, and beyond some vague notion of all of us being participants in original sin, I'm unaware of any Christian or Jewish denomination that believes people are liable for the sins of their parents. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
Original sin no baptism and you're done.In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the "perfect" mode of existence of Man to the flawed or "fallen" mode of existence of Man. This fallen nature and all that has come from it is a result of "original sin." All humanity participates in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human and follow in his ways. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this renewal of the perfect mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her. This view differs from the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin, the legacy of Latin father Augustine of Hippo, in that Man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin committed by Adam, conceived as the federal head and legal representative of the human race.[8] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine's interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born guilty and deserving of damnation, and Protestant doctrines such as predestination which are derived from the Augustinian theory of original sin and are especially prominent in the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions, are not a part of Orthodox belief. In the book Ancestral Sin, John S. Romanides addresses the concept of original sin, which he understands as an inheritance of ancestral sin from previous generations. Romanides asserts that original sin (understood as innate guilt) is not an apostolic doctrine of the Church nor cohesive with the Eastern Orthodox faith, but rather an unfortunate innovation of later church fathers such as Augustine. In the realm of ascetics it is by choice, not birth, that one takes on the sins of the world.[9] . On May 17 2017 02:47 JimmiC wrote: or, OR!, when you base your utopia on another utopia, you're objectively bad at making them.Everyone assumes someone else's version of utopia is worse then theirs. It's basically impossible not too. In fact your doing the same thing | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 18 2017 00:08 xM(Z wrote: semantics dude, semantics. no baptism and you're done. or, OR!, when you base your utopia on another utopia, you're objectively bad at making them. Original Sin is a catholic concept. It's why protestants don't see baptism as anything more than a public display of fealty, and not a process of forgiveness. | ||
| ||
