Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

[Goldtop]

We can. By losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation, and replacing it with a taste for something that right, and is inline with wisdom.

Seems completely unnecessary to replace as that merely replaces one vice for another. The solution is simple, it is one's own wisdom that dictates their adversity to temptation. Of course, to say drinking is a temptation is rather pointless as there are a great deal of things that can be considered tempting.

If I attend my friends birthday and we hoist a couple of bourbons in his honor, is that temptation?

Or instead, if my friend asked me to fly to Vegas and get drunk all weekend, I would probably decline not because it's temptation, but simply because I would have to tend to a week long hangover.

Simple wisdom, often brought on by trial and error. And, I don't see temptation in the equation whatsoever. Where do you see it, Jan?

 

[Tiassa]

From the Khilwati, per Idries Shah (1967):

Two pious and worthy men went into a mosque together. The first one took off his shoes and placed them neatly, side by side, outside the door. The second man removed his shoes, placed them sole to sole and took them into the mosque with him.
. . .There was an argument among a group of other pious and worthy folk who were sitting at the door, as to which of these men was the better. 'If one went barefoot into a mosque, was it not better to leave the very shoes outside?' asked one. 'But should we not consider', said another, 'that the man who took his shoes into the mosque carried them to remind himself by their very presence that he was in a state of proper humility?'
. . .When the two men came out after their prayers, they were questioned separately, as it happened, by different parties from the onlookers.
. . .The first man said: 'I left my shoes outside for the usual reason. The reason is that if anyone wants to steal them he will have an opportunity of resisting that temptation, and thus acquiring merit for himself.' The listeners were most impressed by the high-mindedness of a man whose possessions were of so little account to him that he willingly entrusted them to whatever might be their fate.
. . .The second man, at the same time, was saying: 'I took my shoes into the mosque because, had I left them outside, they might have constituted a temptation to steal them. Whoever had yielded to this temptation would have made me his accomplice in sin.' The hearers were most impressed by this pious sentiment, and admired the thoughtfulness of the sage.
. . .But yet another man, a man of wisdom, who was present, cried out: 'While you two men and your followers have been indulging in your admirable sentiment, training each other with the play of hypothetical instances, certain real things have been happening.'
. . .'What were these things?' asked the crowd.
. . .'Nobody was tempted by the shoes. Nobody was not tempted by the shoes. The theoretical sinner did not pass by. Instead, another man altogether, who had no shoes at all to carry with him or to leave outside, entered the mosque. Nobody noticed his conduct. He was not conscious of the effect which he might be having on the people who saw him or did not see him. But, because of his real sincerity, his prayers in this mosque today helped, in the most direct way possible, all the potential thieves who might or might not steal shoes or reform themselves by being exposed to temptation.'
. . .Do you still not see that the mere practice of self-conscious conduct, however excellent in its own realm, is a pale thing indeed when measured against the knowledge that there are real men of wisdom?​

Modern perspective might reasonably dispute the efficacy of prayer as any manner of distal therapy, but the underlying point still holds. The story, part of a teaching corpus reaching back to the late fourteenth century, can hold the line even when facing substance addiction instead of socioeconomics or conditioned behavioral dependency, and, furthermore, such distinctions can be simplified toward resolution, as long as we regard prayer and such behaviors loosely enough and do not insist on preclusive definitions.
____________________

Notes:

Shah, Idries. Tales of the Dervishes: Teaching Stories of the Sufi Masters Over the Past Thousand Years. 1967. London: Octagon Press, 1993.

 

[iceaura]

Modern perspective might reasonably dispute the efficacy of prayer as any manner of distal therapy, but the underlying point still holds.

The underlying point was the "direct" efficacy of sincere prayer on the behavior of thieves, in comparison with policy debates or any other behaviors of the educated as opposed to the wise. (Note that the "real things" said to have happened were just as imaginary as the denigrated hypotheses of the debate.)

That account is a standard hypnotic frame of fundie Abrahamic religion. It is often - in the US almost always - part of a framework that sells children on the concept of sin, which is the only relevance of your post to this thread.

The US people most thoroughly hypnotized by such frames vote Republican on that basis. They are, in other words, people who harm themselves and their neighbors and do bad things to other people on purpose. That would be one of the potential downsides of raising children with a concept of sin (a concept which rests on the inculcation of self-consciousness in conduct, btw, ).

 

[Tiassa]

That account is a standard hypnotic frame of fundie Abrahamic religion.

That retort is a standard frame of fundamental bigotry. It's almost like you're not capable of recognizing the diversity of what you hate.

 

[iceaura]

That retort is a standard frame of fundamental bigotry.

No, it isn't.
And further unlike your post, it's directly relevant to the thread. It's a relevant post. The concept of sin as inculcated in children is central to fundie Abrahamic theistic religion, which is in turn a dominant context of child raising in the societies which raise their children with a concept of sin, which is the context of this thread. You talk about the one, you talk about the other.

It's almost like you're not capable of recognizing the diversity of what you hate.

You drop into that bs of "hatred" and so forth automatically, by now. Misrepresentation, personal attack.
Do you recognize the pivot? Others do that, here. Take a look at their posts - that's you, these days.

 

[Tiassa]

¡Booty! Click for nerdcore.​

And further unlike your post, it's directly relevant to the thread. It's a relevant post.

You're right. Nobody was discussing temptation.

Not in post #310↑, or #311↑; so that discussion, which didn't happen, most certainly didn't grow in #312↑, or #313-14↑. #315↑? #316↑? Nope? Then #318↑ and #319↑ most assuredly commenting on that discussion that isn't happening. Certes, it doesn't carry on with a twist at 321↑, into metacommentary at 322↑; nor the twist earn the obvious complaint at #323↑. #324↑ could not possibly return to the preacher's own discussion of temptation that wasn't happening; nor could he continue responding, in #325↑. Critics would not be continuing their nonexistent criticism of a discussion that isn't happening in #326-28↑. Thus we can only imagine how the continuing unreal discussion would read in make-believe posts with numbers like #329↑, #330↑, or #331↑. On the upside, there is no nails on chalkboard sensation about balbutive evangelism, to the one, or the failure of the ostensibly enlightened, to the other, so we have no real need to pass over #332-34↑, as they never happened and thus do not exist to decide whether or not to pass over. And nobody is discussing temptation in #335↑. As there is no Heaven to help us with #336-38↑, it's probably best those posts don't exist, either. We could achieve metaunreality by postulating posts at #339-40↑. And the thing about all these posts that apparently don't exist is that if they do, well, that's a lot of posts that aren't relevant to, uh, what was it you said, oh, right, the thread. Like #341-47↑. Good thing nobody wasted any time writing those posts, right? Like #349↑, which has nothing to do with that other irrelevancy. #352↑; something, something, which leads to #353↑, or not, if none of this exists. #357↑ has nothing to do with happiness, but neither does that have to do with anything else about the question of the relevance of temptation to this discussion. #359↑, #361↑, and here we are.

Seriously, Iceaura: Get a grip.

 

[iceaura]

You're right. Nobody was discussing temptation.

You posted irrelevancy on this thread, for bad reasons. Your pretexts are as irrelevant as the post, your motive the usual.
Misrepresent, then attack personally.
No wall of polysyllabic bs with links that don't actually mean what you claim is going to change that. ( Your thesaurus is not much help in hiding your drift from the literate. Trolls can quote Roget to their purpose.)

and here we are.

Again.
That is not an attempt to raise the level of discussion here, even given your ludicrous contention that more sophisticated religious "thinking" (vocabulary) would be a way of doing so.

Seriously, Iceaura: Get a grip.

Clinton is a compromised rightwing authoritarian and an incompetent politician who betrayed you as she has every liberal and leftwing libertarian in the US for nearly forty years now. The time of mourning is over. Time to read Molly Ivins, not Idries Shah.

 

[Tiassa]

You posted irrelevancy on this thread, for bad reasons. Your pretexts are as irrelevant as the post, your motive the usual.

No, that's just you.

Misrepresent, then attack personally.

You could try not making it up as you seethe along your merry way.

No wall of polysyllabic bs with links that don't actually mean what you claim is going to change that. ( Your thesaurus is not much help in hiding your drift from the literate. Trolls can quote Roget to their purpose.)

Look, the evidence rejects your ad hoc standard of relevance. Screeching like you're too stupid to figure that out isn't going to help.

Again.
That is not an attempt to raise the level of discussion here, even given your ludicrous contention that more sophisticated religious "thinking" (vocabulary) would be a way of doing so.

We might note, having taken the moment for consideration of sophistication, that your problem is an utter lack thereof: Two-bit screeching bigotry doesn't suddenly become admirable just because it's atheistic.

Clinton is a compromised rightwing authoritarian and an incompetent politician who betrayed you as she has every liberal and leftwing libertarian in the US for nearly forty years now. The time of mourning is over. Time to read Molly Ivins, not Idries Shah.

Something about irrelevance goes here. Or is it just that you couldn't get through this one without her?

 

[iceaura]

Something about irrelevance goes here.

Yep.
Went there, you mean. It described your post.

Look, the evidence rejects your ad hoc standard of relevance.

No, it didn't. That was the point.

We might note, having taken the moment for consideration of sophistication, that your problem is an utter lack thereof

Really. Compared to whom - this guy?

Screeching like you're too stupid to figure that out isn't going to help.
- - -
Two-bit screeching bigotry doesn't suddenly become admirable just because it's atheistic.
- -
as you seethe along your merry way.

Thing is, those words have meanings. You use them indiscriminately, without reference to posted reality, and by all appearances in projection.
There has been in my posts - as before, many many times - no screeching, or seething, or anything that fits the rest of your automatic reflex pejoratives (do you have them written on your hand, or something?). That is another little tell that your gyro has tipped - the vocabulary and rhetoric of the screecher, the seether, the whiner, and so forth, is your embarrassingly childish contribution to these little cul de sacs, for far too long now.

Look: You got took, you were badly fooled in public, these things happen. It's not my fault. Time to read Molly Ivins, not Idries Shah.