An accidental homosexuality experiment?

[Reba]

Most religions do not specifically teach us to show compassion to animals (esp dogs and cats) and yet... most of us show compassion to animals. Evidence that it can come from within?

I didn't say that people don't have some natural compassion for others in themselves. It does have to be nurtured and protected. We also know of people who enjoy being cruel to animals. What is that evidence of?

There is always the inner struggle between the nature of the original man that God created, in His image, full of compassion and good, and the nature of the man that has resulted from generations of sin being passed along since Adam's fall.

 

[Reba]

Carrot/stick is the simplistic "do this right thing because you'll be rewarded (with money, or friends, or heaven), and don't do this wrong thing because you'll be punished (with jail, or societal disapproval, or hell)." In an expanded context, it's just an even more simplistic form of legalism, where the rationale for the carrot/stick divisions are simply "Because the government says so" or "Because the leader of the group said so", etc.

The carrot and stick approach is for belief systems that depend on works.

The belief of born-again Christians is that one's destination of either Heaven or Hell doesn't depend on good works. One doesn't earn one's way into Heaven.

 

[StSapphire]

I didn't say that people don't have some natural compassion for others in themselves. It does have to be nurtured and protected. We also know of people who enjoy being cruel to animals. What is that evidence of?

Mental problems, usually.

The carrot and stick approach is for belief systems that depend on works.

The belief of born-again Christians is that one's destination of either Heaven or Hell doesn't depend on good works. One doesn't earn one's way into Heaven.

That still tends to rely upon the evidentiary model, which is a less direct, but still somewhat existent carrot/stick approach. (That is, the more someone sins can be seen as evidence that they're not really "saved" or otherwise somehow taking the message or whatever to heart. It's not a direct form of causation, but it can still affect the behavior of those who believe that as a more circuitous form of causation.)

Of course, the underlying problem isn't (entirely) with how you impart the moral framework, but with how the moral framework is created in the first place. Both causal and evidentiary models can represent a legalistic moral framework, where an act isn't judged based upon any criteria other than some foreign black box response.

 

[Loghead]

I honestly think it varies depending on the person. Some people feel that they have been born GLBT, and others feel like it developed over time.

 

[jillio]

Tell me about it!! I've had people ask me "How do you know what's right or wrong without God?"

I look at them and..... worry a lot.

If you need someone to tell you that murder is wrong, you got problems!!!!!

Not that I'm bashing religion or anything. In fact, I'm sure having faith helped out my mom a lot through her tough times, but I DO find it weird that, for a few people, the ONLY reason why they are not doing immoral things is because someone simply told them not to. Shouldn't it come from within?

Perfect foundation for an insanity defense!

 

[jillio]

It should but regrettably it doesn't. That's evidenced by how so many bad things happen in this world. Man's conscience has become twisted, and in some cases, almost non-existent, so it's not dependable.

If we could all trust an innate sense of right and wrong to guide us, would there be so much evil happening in the world?

So, you see religion as a means to social control?

 

[jillio]

Maybe you don't like the reason but aren't you glad that he isn't killing?

If that is the reason he is not killing, it won't hold him back for long. Forensic psychological studies have shown that when one kills, one is not thinking about the punsihment or the legal consequences of what they are doing. That is why the death penalty has been shown, over and over again, not to be a deterent.

 

[jillio]

Most religions do not specifically teach us to show compassion to animals (esp dogs and cats) and yet... most of us show compassion to animals. Evidence that it can come from within?

Most reeligions do not teach us effective compassion for our fellow man, unless the fellow man happens to believe exactly as we believe.

So, yes, empathy is a psychological phenomena that is present within in the individual (or not) depending upon biological and environmental factors.

 

[jillio]

That's why I don't follow legalism, nor do I belong to a legalistic church.


Christian families who follow the Bible's teaching also provide environments that promote actual compassion and moral responsibility so that their children understand why something is right or wrong.

What do you consider to be a carrot and stick approach to teaching the right thing?



That's what Christians do. We just use a different system.


Me, too. But I don't want to slam other specific churches or religions here. I'm just explaining my viewpoint, beliefs, and experiences.

No, it is not just a different system. It is the difference between extrinsic motivation, which fails as soon as the promise of reward is gone, and intrinsic motivation, which creates lasting behavioral changes.

 

[jillio]

The carrot and stick approach is for belief systems that depend on works.

The belief of born-again Christians is that one's destination of either Heaven or Hell doesn't depend on good works. One doesn't earn one's way into Heaven.

But if one does A one will receive B. Yep. Definately carrot and stick.

 

[jillio]

So now that we have settled that, and GLTB issues are not a religious issue, but rather a social and biological issue.....

 

[deafskeptic]

But if one does A one will receive B. Yep. Definately carrot and stick.

Accepting Jesus as your personal Christ because if you don't accept him, you're hell bound upon your death has to be the ultimate carrot and stick.

 

[jillio]

Accepting Jesus as your personal Christ because if you don't accept him, you're hell bound upon your death has to be the ultimate carrot and stick.

Exactly. You must engage in a behavior to get the reward.

 

[Reba]

Most reeligions do not teach us effective compassion for our fellow man, unless the fellow man happens to believe exactly as we believe.

You should really stick to things that you know.

I don't tell you what psychology teaches, and you don't tell me what my religion teaches.

 

[Reba]

So, you see religion as a means to social control?

No. That would be wrong.

 

[Reba]

If that is the reason he is not killing, it won't hold him back for long. Forensic psychological studies have shown that when one kills, one is not thinking about the punsihment or the legal consequences of what they are doing. That is why the death penalty has been shown, over and over again, not to be a deterent.

The full text of Daredevel7's post was:

"I find it extremely disturbing if the person next to me in church is a ready made serial killer but the only reason why he doesn't kill is because God may punish him. (No need to correct me on what God does or doesn't from your beliefs, just saying that a person may live in fear of God because he believes that He could punish him)."

Since Daredevel7 said, "No need to correct me on what God does or doesn't from your beliefs," I didn't. But I don't believe that a person doesn't become a serial killer simply because he thinks that "God may punish him."

 

[Reba]

But if one does A one will receive B. Yep. Definately carrot and stick.

I'll repeat.

Works do not determine a destination of Heaven or Hell.

No one can earn Heaven.

Heaven is not a reward for works. Hell is not a punishment for lack of works.

 

[Reba]

No, it is not just a different system. It is the difference between extrinsic motivation, which fails as soon as the promise of reward is gone, and intrinsic motivation, which creates lasting behavioral changes.

Christians don't use extrinsic motivation.

 

[Reba]

Mental problems, usually.

As Daredevel7 said about compassion, "Evidence that it can come from within?"

That still tends to rely upon the evidentiary model, which is a less direct, but still somewhat existent carrot/stick approach. (That is, the more someone sins can be seen as evidence that they're not really "saved" or otherwise somehow taking the message or whatever to heart. It's not a direct form of causation, but it can still affect the behavior of those who believe that as a more circuitous form of causation.)

I don't know. Did the person who continues to sin even profess that he was a born-again Christian to begin with?

Of course, the underlying problem isn't (entirely) with how you impart the moral framework, but with how the moral framework is created in the first place. Both causal and evidentiary models can represent a legalistic moral framework, where an act isn't judged based upon any criteria other than some foreign black box response.

Legalism is the belief that salvation is acquired by following a set of rules; that is, salvation by works. Salvation by grace is not the same as legalism.

My moral framework is provided by an all-knowing, all-loving, eternal, unchanging, omniscient God.

I'm not going to say what the moral framework is for others. If you or anyone wants to say what your or their moral framework is, that's fine.

 

[StSapphire]

As Daredevel7 said about compassion, "Evidence that it can come from within?"

Yep, mental problems can come from within. That's why I don't trust philosophical models that rely purely on solipsism (yours doesn't, that was just a random comment).

I don't know. Did the person who continues to sin even profess that he was a born-again Christian to begin with?

There are a great many who have and do. I see nothing contradictory with someone believing that Jesus is their savior and all of that (yes, oversimplifying), and "continuing to sin". That includes ignoring the fact that naturally all believers who don't convert and then immediately die "continue to sin". You can claim that someone who "truly believes would not do so" and thus anyone who does continue to sin never was a "true believer", but then that's merely because that's how you've defined "true believer" to be, rather than actually having anything to do with a result of belief.

Legalism is the belief that salvation is acquired by following a set of rules; that is, salvation by works. Salvation by grace is not the same as legalism.

No, no. I mean, that might be one form of legalism. I'm using it in the broader moral sense of what is right and wrong. Salvation doesn't come into play since I think that's make-believe.

But seriously, I'm using it more in the sense of extrinsic vs intrinsic decision theory. Legalism (as I'm using it) is the system whereby you are handed a set of rules (stone tablets, if you will) and told that those are defined as "right and wrong". The inherent problem with legalism of this sort is easily seen in the following situation:

1) God is mysterious to humans, and we cannot predict his actions.
2) God is superior to humans, which is why we must obey his commands.
3) God hands you a stone tablet, containing the 11th commandment: Thou Shalt Rape The Virgins.

If situations one and two are acceptable to you, but situation three is not, then you are not truly following the edicts of an external entity; you are applying an intrinsic model of right and wrong, and when the source for your (what I'm calling legalistic) model conflicts with your intrinsic estimation of what the external source says should be true, you contradict either situations one or two.

If the third situation is acceptable to you... then in terms applicable to you, "may God have mercy on your soul", lol.

My moral framework is provided by an all-knowing, all-loving, eternal, unchanging, omniscient God.

I'm not going to say what the moral framework is for others. If you or anyone wants to say what your or their moral framework is, that's fine.

If the above situation seems unfathomable or impossible to you, then you've either modified that moral framework so that it extends beyond that (in which case it is now subject to your personal control), or you're trying to limit your supposedly omniscient and all-powerful (you left that one out, but I'll assume it was meant to be included) God to merely human feelings, thoughts and emotions.