Mom unapologetically raising kid without religion

[PruePhillip]

Well sex slavery was legal and in my opinion a sex slave is pretty much just like a prostitute but worse since a prostitute can actually quit this occupation, works on her own accord and can win a wage that she is free to spend as she wishes. They also had concubines, child brides, the right to have sex with female servants, etc. Considering that a woman's consent wasn't necessary for marriage and that she had very little to no capacity to work to make an independant living in the Ancient Hebrew society, we can even make the argument that those women were not much better placed than prostitute, forced to service a man they might not love in exchange of protection, shelter and goods. In a society where there is sex slavery, legalised polygamy, forced marriage and where women are at best treated as children and at worst possession, there is little need for prostitution.

PS: depiction of sexual organs (mostly vagina and penises) were often kept as lucky charms in the region. They were supposed to enhance fertility or potency.

I understand. This is called moral or cultural relativity.
ie those people back then had few options - we have
tons of options and spend our money on drugs and
whores.
I wasn't aware there were forced marriages in Israel.
The servant of Abraham who met Sarah, the future
daughter-in-law, still had to ask her would she be
willing to go and marry Abraham's son.

Yes, there was polygamy, and kings had concubines.
But that is fundamentally different to seeing 13 year
old girls today getting pregnant.

 

[epronovost]

I understand. This is called moral or cultural relativity.
ie those people back then had few options - we have
tons of options and spend our money on drugs and
whores.
I wasn't aware there were forced marriages in Israel.
The servant of Abraham who met Sarah, the future
daughter-in-law, still had to ask her would she be
willing to go and marry Abraham's son.

Yes, there was polygamy, and kings had concubines.
But that is fundamentally different to seeing 13 year
old girls today getting pregnant.

The marriable age for girls in Ancient Palestine was from the moment they had their first menses (which was on average at the age 16 back then, but 13 wasn't unheard off either. Note that today, thanks to better food and healthcare the average age of the first menses has been lowered). Thus not only could a 13 years old girl be legally married back then, she could also have children and many did. Some apocryphical writtings make Mary 12 years old when she had Jesus, another similar text place her at 14 (and Joseph nothing less then 90 years old). By law, the minimal age of marriage back then was 12 years old for girls.

PS: they had a lot of options, they spent their money on sex slaves instead of whores. Whores are "annoyingly free" and slaves can't say no.

PPS: It was considered polite and traditionnal to ask a woman or girl if she wants to be married, but in the end, it's her father who decides. Should she refuses and disobey him, he can beat or even kill her for such an offense. It's not because women aren't free that you don't care or love them.

 

[Darkforbid]

That's my point. Stoicism is much older then Christianity and stoic philosophy penetrated the area at the same time then the Greeks and later Romans two centuries before the birth of Christ let alone the birth of Christianity. Stoicism isn't a religious doctrine. It's a secular philosophy. Zeno himself was an atheists.

More rubbish; The Universe, in Zeno's view, is God: a divine reasoning entity, where all the parts belong to the whole.

This is about the theology of stoic school

Is blatantly misrepresenting facts supposed to, in some way, prove secular morality, moral?

 

[PruePhillip]

The marriable age for girls in Ancient Palestine was from the moment they had their first menses (which was on average at the age 16 back then, but 13 wasn't unheard off either. Note that today, thanks to better food and healthcare the average age of the first menses has been lowered). Thus not only could a 13 years old girl be legally married back then, she could also have children and many did. Some apocryphical writtings make Mary 12 years old when she had Jesus, another similar text place her at 14 (and Joseph nothing less then 90 years old). By law, the minimal age of marriage back then was 12 years old for girls.

PS: they had a lot of options, they spent their money on sex slaves instead of whores. Whores are "annoyingly free" and slaves can't say no.

PPS: It was considered polite and traditionnal to ask a woman or girl if she wants to be married, but in the end, it's her father who decides. Should she refuses and disobey him, he can beat or even kill her for such an offense. It's not because women aren't free that you don't care or love them.

Interesting. Studies show that "arranged marriages" in many cultures work better
than non-arranged marriages. Makes sense because the parents have more
experience and wisdom than they kids.
But The Problem for modernity is that people favorably equate modern moral
behavior with the culture and customs of the past. Thus an arranged marriage
of 1600 is somehow worse than the average Western woman having more
male "partners" than children.

ps Pay no attention to "apocryphal" writings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. Studies show that "arranged marriages" in many cultures work better
than non-arranged marriages. Makes sense because the parents have more
experience and wisdom than they kids.
But The Problem for modernity is that people favorably equate modern moral
behavior with the culture and customs of the past. Thus an arranged marriage
of 1600 is somehow worse than the average Western woman having more
male "partners" than children.

ps Pay no attention to "apocryphal" writings.

It is usually not really a fair comparison. In many areas where arranged marriages exist divorces are illegal or very difficult to obtain, and if not that very often quite unfair to the wife. A lack of divorces is no necessarily evidence for a successful marriage.

 

[Phaedrus]

It is usually not really a fair comparison. In many areas where arranged marriages exist divorces are illegal or very difficult to obtain, and if not that very often quite unfair to the wife. A lack of divorces is no necessarily evidence for a successful marriage.

Not to mention the fact that older generations stuck together out of a sense of responsibility toward marriage vows despite not being happy together as a couple. Of course, with newer generations will always come a broader understanding of evolved self care.

 

[epronovost]

Calling Zeno's thoughts on the univers and nature cosmologie would be anachronical, but linking the term "theology" to the idea that Zeno was the founder of some religious movment would be equally false. It's from the stoic first observation and theorisation of the univers amongst others that disciplines like modern physics emerged. It's also good to note that the "God" of Zeno isn't so much an actual deity more then a metaphore. Zeno, in the passage you quoted above, basically just espouse the principle of naturalism and a rejection of the supernatural. He also espouse the view that the univers is eternal and is reasonnable (AKA that it's predictable and possible to understand) and that it's all of the best thing for it's everything. You are right though, Zeno wasn't really atheist, but pantheist. Yet, stoicism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy and none of its founders were religious figures. Philosophy, just like that of the stoic, is secular and is developped through observation, experience and reason, not revelation, dreams or prophecies.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is usually not really a fair comparison. In many areas where arranged marriages exist divorces are illegal or very difficult to obtain, and if not that very often quite unfair to the wife. A lack of divorces is no necessarily evidence for a successful marriage.

There is simply no way you could compare arranged marriages with the
crisis in homeless and single parent families, such as seen in Afro
American communities where about three quarters of all children live
with single parents.

In 1900 the divorce rate reached 3% and communities spoke of this as
a "crisis." Fast forward to today. One of the sad aspects of all this is that
the very idea of marriage has changed - and offers little of the benefits
and promises it held until the 1960's, particularly for women and children.
The modern day affair (pardon the pun) brought on largely through the
feminist movement - makes life rather easy for men.

 

[epronovost]

There is simply no way you could compare arranged marriages with the crisis in homeless and single parent families, such as seen in Afro
American communities where about three quarters of all children live
with single parents.

A few corrections here, 70% of children in Afro-American communities are born outside of wedlock. It doesn't mean that they are raised by a single parent. I have a child and I never married her mother even though we have been livin together for about 7 years. It's also important to note that the high divorce rate (and single parenthood) in the Afro-American community is exceptionnaly high due to high incarceration rates amongst young black males. Up to 20% of all black male are incarcerated at some point in their lives. It's also good to note that due to cultural difference between Afro-American and American of European descent, the role of the extended family in the education and upbringing is more important in Afro-American communities then their European descent counterpart. Arrange marriage isn't a solution to the problem of single parent families. It exposes women and children to abuse needlessly while facilitating the investment of the extended family in a child's life to compensate for an abscent parent, proper science based sexual education, family planning, availability of contraception and abortion, criminal justice reforms, investment in infrastructures and public services would do much better at solving this problems.

 

[PruePhillip]

A few corrections here, 70% of children in Afro-American communities are born outside of wedlock. It doesn't mean that they are raised by a single parent. I have a child and I never married her mother even though we have been livin together for about 7 years. It's also important to note that the high divorce rate (and single parenthood) in the Afro-American community is exceptionnaly high due to high incarceration rates amongst young black males. Up to 20% of all black male are incarcerated at some point in their lives. It's also good to note that due to cultural difference between Afro-American and American of European descent, the role of the extended family in the education and upbringing is more important in Afro-American communities then their European descent counterpart. Arrange marriage isn't a solution to the problem of single parent families. It exposes women and children to abuse needlessly while facilitating the investment of the extended family in a child's life to compensate for an abscent parent, proper science based sexual education, family planning, availability of contraception and abortion, criminal justice reforms, investment in infrastructures and public services would do much better at solving this problems.

I accept most of your points. But I do see a hint of a circular argument when you say traditional
nuclear families won't work with Afro Americans due to the incarceration rate.
I don't say we accept arranged marriages - just want to point out that for every social "reform"
there is a social "cost." This cost is rarely acknowledged. Thus all the "reforms" in the world
won't solve the problem of our human nature.

An example of what I just wrote. In the 1970's there was an extensive campaign by members
of the self-named 'progressive' movement within Australian churches to introduce women's
ordination - and denying claims it would support gay marriage. As it was we wound up with
women priests and even married gay priests - but most of the church was gone because you
can't be "progressive" and religious.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, I'll rephrase it:

So how does secular moralistic awareness and responsibility of consequences differ from religious awareness and responsibility of consequences?

When religion is at its best, it does not.

Religion is not supposed to go out of its way to avoid learning from secular sources.

Nor is secular wisdom supposed to refuse to learn from religious wisdom either. And indeed, far as I know it does does in fact learn from religious experience and wisdom.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not the way I see it though! All I see is since 1851 secularism hasn't even come up with one original rule or ethic

Rules are worse than useless when it comes to ethics. They are just inihibition, after all. How could anyone learn ethics from them?

I don't know where the 1851 date comes from, but as a matter of fact we have learned marvelous amounts of ethical knowledge since. You really owe it to yourself to learn a bit of the findings in that field.

Unless obviously 'lets do exactly the same not using the word God' is somehow virtuous in your eyes

It is indeed meritorious - and quite a lot at that - to avoid relying on using god-concepts, not only in ethics but even and perhaps most of all in religion proper.

God-concepts are vague, often deliberately obfuscating and contradictory, and present the superficial appearance of a meaning where there is none.

At its very best, use of god-conceptions can be a valuable part of personal practice; some people are naturally inclined to develop some form of those conceptions and it would b a waste to try to ignore that.

But as a teaching tool, as a concept to share meanings and knowledge, god-concepts require quite a lot of commentary just to lend them clarity of meaning. That can be made to work, even marvelously, but it requires quite a lot of effort and serious dedication. Without those, we get disastrous amounts of confusion and harm, as so often demonstrated in history.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, I'll rephrase it:

So how does secular moralistic awareness and responsibility of consequences differ from religious awareness and responsibility of consequences?

Oh, and are you aware that you are insulting people who owe you nothing and following that pointless aggression with requests for information?

Not a winning strategy in general, and I can't help but wonder why you favor it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Another insightful article from the perspective of the non-believer.



I Am Unapologetically Raising My Daughter Without Religion

Without apology, I raised my kids without religion. Both trusted Jesus for salvation, and not raising them to be religious sure helped a lot!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without apology, I raised my kids without religion. Both trusted Jesus for salvation, and not raising them to be religious sure helped a lot!

You seem to be having a hard time understanding what the word religion means.

 

[sealchan]

'suggest that raising your children with secular morality is highly beneficial, saying that these children are “less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian, and more tolerant.'

So a non-religious upbringing makes you more sheep like

Sheep are paranoid, so...no.

 

[sealchan]

It is usually not really a fair comparison. In many areas where arranged marriages exist divorces are illegal or very difficult to obtain, and if not that very often quite unfair to the wife. A lack of divorces is no necessarily evidence for a successful marriage.

And parents may be motivated by social-political considerations which are tangential to personal compatibility. Also, children often wish to break free of their parents biases and having ones parents choose who you are to commit to can be highly problematic.

Still I think that parental input can be a blessing.

 

[unisus]

Calling Zeno's thoughts on the univers and nature cosmologie would be anachronical, but linking the term "theology" to the idea that Zeno was the founder of some religious movment would be equally false. It's from the stoic first observation and theorisation of the univers amongst others that disciplines like modern physics emerged. It's also good to note that the "God" of Zeno isn't so much an actual deity more then a metaphore. Zeno, in the passage you quoted above, basically just espouse the principle of naturalism and a rejection of the supernatural. He also espouse the view that the univers is eternal and is reasonnable (AKA that it's predictable and possible to understand) and that it's all of the best thing for it's everything. You are right though, Zeno wasn't really atheist, but pantheist. Yet, stoicism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy and none of its founders were religious figures. Philosophy, just like that of the stoic, is secular and is developped through observation, experience and reason, not revelation, dreams or prophecies.

Except that philosophy isn't secular. The term Philo-Sophia means Love of Wisdom; Sophia being a transliteration of Zophia or Zophiel (sometimes spelled Jophiel). Z, J, and S were often interchangeable as were Dy & Di with J. V & PH were interchangeable during the evolution of language.

Jophiel is the archangel of wisdom; another term for Jophiel is Dina, or Diana. Diana/Dione/Dios/Diove/Diovana is the same root of the term Jove or Joviel; it is where Juvenation comes from. The same root for the word Love.

And so it is no coincident that Jove/Dove/Joviel sounds exactly like Jophiel, Zophiel, Sophial, the archangel of wisdom. Jove being Zeus/Jupiter or Deus Pater, the eternal cosmic dance of life — perpetual motion, undying youth. Hence jove/joviality/rejuvenation meaning youthful and full of life.

By definition, Philo-Sophia stems from Philo+Jovial or Jophiel (the archangel of wisdom). Philosophy literally stems from "the love of life", God being Eternal Life or all that exists.

Philosophy is a term that specifically stems from observing God in motion. I find that most atheists have an elementary understanding of language at best, and make profound claims that all terms, all things creative, all things clever, profoundly true, beautiful, and anyone who made a difference was somehow atheist.

The reality is that you simply are saying what you want to be true, to sound more powerful in numbers & to divorce the believers from any acceptance that they may possess any tangible connection to power, authority, wisdom, love, actual beauty, understanding, and youth in its essence. Get a new day job.

 

[sealchan]

Another insightful article from the perspective of the non-believer.



I Am Unapologetically Raising My Daughter Without Religion

Most certainly human moral feeling comes from within, but stories help us to sort out the various conflicting factors that make moral decisions difficult and even painful.

No doubt today's parent can find plenty of more contemporary stories which will serve the purpose.

 

[epronovost]

Except that philosophy isn't secular. The term Philo-Sophia means Love of Wisdom; Sophia being a transliteration of Zophia or Zophiel (sometimes spelled Jophiel). Z, J, and S were often interchangeable as were Dy & Di with J. V & PH were interchangeable during the evolution of language.

Jophiel is the archangel of wisdom; another term for Jophiel is Dina, or Diana. Diana/Dione/Dios/Diove/Diovana is the same root of the term Jove or Joviel; it is where Juvenation comes from. The same root for the word Love.

And so it is no coincident that Jove/Dove/Joviel sounds exactly like Jophiel, Zophiel, Sophial, the archangel of wisdom. Jove being Zeus/Jupiter or Deus Pater, the eternal cosmic dance of life — perpetual motion, undying youth. Hence jove/joviality/rejuvenation meaning youthful and full of life.

By definition, Philo-Sophia stems from Philo+Jovial or Jophiel (the archangel of wisdom). Philosophy literally stems from "the love of life", God being Eternal Life or all that exists.

Philosophy is a term that specifically stems from observing God in motion. I find that most atheists have an elementary understanding of language at best, and make profound claims that all terms, all things creative, all things clever, profoundly true, beautiful, and anyone who made a difference was somehow atheist.

The reality is that you simply are saying what you want to be true, to sound more powerful in numbers & to divorce the believers from any acceptance that they may possess any tangible connection to power, authority, wisdom, love, actual beauty, understanding, and youth in its essence. Get a new day job.

Your etymolgy of the word philosophy is actually pointless to the fact that philosophy is secular. It's not religious in nature or structure and was never considered as such. Plus your etymology seem to make a few leaps that I wouldn't have made. For example you link words from different cultures and time frame together because they "sound or are spelled alike", that's a red flag in pseudo-scholarship in that domain. You also assume your premise to be true and ignore metaphores or consider them literal. At the same time, you are pushing insults into me without the slightest evidence or reason for it. I never sayed that all things create, clever, true or beautfil was made by atheists or was secular. Secular doesn't equate atheism. It means "that is not of religious nature". Religious people make and say secular things all the time. I specifically mentionned ealier that it would be simplistic and reductive to say that all that is religious is basically secular things to which someone has added "because God says so" at the end and vice versa. In other words, if you can't read full sentences, don't present yourself as an etymologist and get a new day job.